dadaab and fafi districts host community assessment · dadaab and fafi, specifically, the host...

FSL Assessment

Dadaab & Fafi Districts, Kenya

Dadaab and Fafi Districts

Host Community Assessment

Garissa County, North Eastern Province,

Kenya

June – August 2012

John Waswa

Action Against Hunger - USA

ACF Assessment Report, Dadaab and Fafi Refugee Host Communities, NEP Kenya – August 2012 ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I’m grateful to ACF Kenya Nairobi and Dadaab team for their technical and logistical support all through the

assessment process, including the development of the Terms of Reference, guidance of the assessment direction

and offering their input to various draft reports.

Special acknowledgement goes to the various government bodies for their support all through the assessment

process which including population data amongst others. I would also wish to recognize the entire data

collection team for their tireless effort in ensuring good quality data was gathered and the caretakers and

families for allowing the assessment team to gather information from their respective households

Finally, the generous participation of leaders and ordinary residents from Fafi and Dadaab district host

communities in individual interviews and group discussions is the foundation on which the assessment findings

rest, and without their inputs the work would simply not have been possible.

John Waswa

ACF Assessment Report, Dadaab and Fafi Refugee Host Communities, NEP Kenya – August 2012 iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CDF

CRS

Constituency Development Fund

Catholic Relief Services

CSI Coping Strategy Index

EMOP Emergency Operations

FaIDA

FAO

Fafi Integrated Development Association

Food and Agriculture Organization

FCS Food Consumption Score

FSL Food security and livelihoods

GoK

GRP

Government of Kenya

Garissa Rehabilitation Project

HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score

HEA Household Economy Approach

IDDS

IOM

Individual Dietary Diversity Score

International Organization for Migration

KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics

MUAC Mid Upper Arm Circumference

NEP North Eastern Province

RRDO Relief, Reconstruction and Development Organization

UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees

WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene

WFP World Food Programme

ACF Assessment Report, Dadaab and Fafi Refugee Host Communities, NEP Kenya – August 2012 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................ iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................. v

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................................. v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1. OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2. STUDY AREA......................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3. SOURCES OF DATA ............................................................................................................................................ 9

2.4. SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.5. INDICATORS USED .......................................................................................................................................... 11

2.6. DATA QUALITY CONTROL AND ASSURANCE ...................................................................................... 12

2.7. LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS .......................................................................................................... 12

3. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1. DEMOGRAPHICS .............................................................................................................................................. 13

3.2. FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS ...................................................................................................... 15

3.3. VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 33

3.4. WATER SANITATION AND HYGIENE ...................................................................................................... 35

3.5. HEALTH ............................................................................................................................................................... 38

4. DADAAB CAMPS SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN THE HOST COMMUNITY .................................... 39

5. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 43

6. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 44

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................................. 47

Annex 1: References ................................................................................................................................................... 47

Annex 2: Overview of Dadaab refugee camps and host communities assessed ................................. 48

Annex 3: Terms of Reference for the Study....................................................................................................... 49

Annex 4: Households and key informant interviews .................................................................................... 51

Annex 5: Assessment schedule and List of enumerators ............................................................................. 52

Annex 6: Household questionnaire ...................................................................................................................... 53

Annex 7: Focus group discussion questionnaire ............................................................................................ 65

Annex 8: Actors in the host community ............................................................................................................. 73

ACF Assessment Report, Dadaab and Fafi Refugee Host Communities, NEP Kenya – August 2012 v

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Assignment locations............................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2. Extract of key informant information............................................................................................... 10 Table 3 Extract of Household Interview list.................................................................................................... 10 Table 4. Seasonal Calendar and Critical events timeline of the assessed region..............................17 Table 5. Wealth groups among the assessed community..........................................................................26 Table 6. Terms of Trade of various commodities trained in host community markets................ 27 Table 7. Vulnerability analysis of female versus male headed households........................................ 34

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Dadaab location map.............................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2. Assessed household by age category..............................................................................................14 Figure 3. Adults above 18years involved in farming................................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Educational levels of the assessed households........................................................................ 15 Figure 5 Livelihoods of the communities assessed...................................................................................... 16 Figure 6. Livestock ownership by households............................................................................................... 18 Figure 7. Household access to veterinary services & livestock participation in vaccination campaigns ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 8. Challenges in terms of constraints to livestock production.................................................. 19 Figure 9. Dadaab and Fafi District market locations................................................................................... 21 Figure 10. Long-term cattle prices against current year prices........................................... ................. 22 Figure 11. Long-term goat prices against current year prices.............................................................. 23 Figure 12. Long term sheep prices against current year prices........................................................... 23 Figure 13 Long-term maize prices against current prices...................................................................... 24 Figure 14. Long term posho prices against current year prices.......................................................... 24 Figure 15. Food sources in host communities............................................................................................. 28 Figure 16 Sources of Income............................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 17. Household general expenditure................................................................................................... 30 Figure 18. Food expenditure............................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 19. Common coping strategies utilized by the host community............................................ 31 Figure 20. Household dietary diversity score among the assessed communities.......................... 32 Figure 21. Mean HDDS among the host community.................................................................................. 32 Figure 22. Individual dietary diversity score of children under 5 years........................................... 33 Figure 23. Food Consumption score in area assessed............................................................................... 33 Figure 24. Food Consumption Scores for male versus female headed households ...................... 35 Figure 25. Mean HDDS of male & female headed households....................................... ......................... 35 Figure 26. Various domestic water sources in host community............................................................ 36 Figure 27. Accessibility to various forms of social amenities................................................................. 37 Figure 28. Water sources maintenance............................................................................................................ 38 Figure 29 Water Treatment practices among communities................................................................... 38 Figure 30. Hand washing practices among the assessed communities.............................................. 39 Figure 31. Morbidity for children under five years..................................................................................... 40 Figure 32. Host Community Security Situation............................................................................................. 43

ACF Assessment Report, Dadaab and Fafi Refugee Host Communities, NEP Kenya – August 2012 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Dadaab and Fafi districts of Garissa County host three of the Dadaab refugee camps, namely, Dagahaley, Ifo and

Hagadera. This has resulted in socio-economic as well as environmental impacts on their immediate host

surroundings. In addition to hosting such a large number of refugees, the two districts in North Eastern province

(NEP) are also predominantly marginal in environmental, agricultural and economical terms. The two host

districts are characterized by unreliable and erratic rainfall as well as poor infrastructure.

The Dadaab camps host community area has been under Emergency Operations (EMOP) since the year 2000,

with a recent scale up in 2011 due to a severe drought and desperate exodus of refugees from Somalia, many

headed to the Dadaab camps and surrounding host communities, with the influx reaching at times up to around

1,500 arriving per day. Recent statistics from UNHCR reports indicate the three camps alone accommodate an

estimated 473,299 refugees (UNHCR, 22nd July, 2012).

In addition, while the severe drought conditions in host community areas of northeast Kenya ended with the

2011 rains season, the effects of crop losses, livestock mortality and acute food and water shortages remain.

The area is increasingly vulnerable to intermittent prolonged droughts leading to severe water shortages for

both domestic and livestock use. In the last year, the north and north eastern pastoral areas received less than

10% of normal rains. Inadequate rainfall resulted in poor pasture and shrub re-growth, poor water availability

and access, and significant livestock losses. The indigenous population is pastoralist Somali and the

communities’ primary source of livelihoods is maintaining livestock. These traditional livelihoods are threatened

as community resilience is worn away by drought and resource scarcity. As such, high levels of food insecurity

remain for poor and very poor households with non-self-supporting livelihoods that attempt to meet substantial

food gaps largely through destructive coping strategies and accessing aid interventions.

Though the growth of the camps has spurred increased investment in host-community infrastructure by

agencies operating there, tensions over the greater level of service provision in the camps remain. The growing

number of refugees entering the camps has increased pressure on already limited water and pastures resources

and has led to an increase in human livestock health problems as livestock concentrate around towns and water

sources, leaving host communities more susceptible to loss of livelihood and conflict over scarce natural

resources.

Most human development indices show Dadaab and surrounding regions as some of the least developed parts

of the country. Socio-economic infrastructure and services such as schools, health centres, potable drinking

water, roads, and production, processing, and marketing facilities are weak. Many sources indicate historical

marginalization, refugee influx, recurrent droughts, misguided pastoral policies, and a lack of development

programs as the major causes of the region’s tenacious poverty.

A number of humanitarian and development actors such as ACF, CARE, Save the Children, Oxfam, CRS, IRC, MSF,

Handicap International, etc. are implementing programs in nutrition, food security, water and sanitation, and

relief distribution.

ACF-USA is operational in Dadaab refugee camps with nutrition and sanitation interventions. Food security and

livelihood (FSL) programming is also envisaged by ACF-USA to complement the core nutrition and sanitation


work in order to address underlying factors of malnutrition in Dadaab camps and the surrounding host

community. Hence, an assessment was initiated to define food security and livelihood (FSL) priorities and

provide guidance for subsequent responses.

In this regard, ACF-USA conducted an integrated FSL assessment in selected areas within the refugee host

community areas, North Eastern Province, Kenya. The assessment covered host communities in two districts,

Dadaab and Fafi, specifically, the host communities of Dadaab, Dagahaley, Ifo and Alinjuour sub-divisions. The

FSL assessment was implemented using the sustainable livelihood framework approach.

The assessment primarily focused on the status of household food security and livelihoods, with supplementary

but limited data collection on health, water, sanitation, and hygiene in host community areas. This resulting

report elaborates on the situation in household food and income sources, coping strategies, performance of

crop and livestock production, the results of a vulnerability analysis and wealth ranking exercise as well as

general findings on health, water, sanitation and hygiene conditions.

In general, the food security situation in the assessed host communities has improved due to positive impacts of

above normal starting from 2011 short rains. However, significant recovery of food security situation is

moderated by sustained high food commodity prices that are above the long-term average prices. The common

household sources of food were food assistance/aid, purchase and gift, respectively used by 32, 26 and 13% of

the households, while the most common coping strategy according to the assessment was borrowing food or

relying on a relatives or friends, used by 27% of households.

Most temporal water sources currently have no water (the survey was conducted late in the dry season) and

there is immense pressure on boreholes.

Health services have been addressed by many of the organisations working with host communities, in

cooperation with the Ministry of Health. The assessment findings indicate that the leading causes of morbidity

for children under five years in Fafi and Dadaab districts were respiratory diseases, diarrhoea, pneumonia,

intestinal worms and skin diseases. Diarrhoea cases were common across the two districts probably due to use

of untreated water and poor hygiene practices.

Assessment recommendations include supporting host communities in developing pastoral production, pastoral

trade, and, above all, mobility. It could include support to veterinary services (including veterinary outreach

services and training community animal health workers) mobile schools, and mobile clinics; development of

stock routes, and livestock holding grounds; address non-uniformity in water development; and development of

access rules and supporting customary institutions for negotiation and regulation.

Additional interventions by agencies and the Kenyan government should focus on supporting community access

to prevention, detection, referral and treatment of acute malnutrition throughout the host communities for

acutely malnourished children at all levels of the health system. Finally, water is a scarce resource of inadequate

quality and quantity particularly during the dry season. Supporting the construction and provision of water

storage services would contribute in easing the water problem. Support should also be considered in ensuring

water is safe, for example through introduction of simple water treatment practices, and increasing awareness

through promotion of sanitation and hygienic practices in order to have an impact on improved health.


Key findings

Food security and livelihood

Significant (30%) livestock losses have pushed large numbers of people into poverty and settlement.

Pastoral drop-outs are numerous mainly due to drought (Garissa District Strategic Plan 2005-2010)

Drought is seen as a major push factor sending people to the host community area and concentrating

them in centres with available water, food relief, schools and other services.

There are a number of important pull factors in the hosting area including availability of cheap food due

to indirect subsidy via food delivery to the refugee operation and imports via Somalia, opportunity to

register as a refugee and receive a ration card, greater availability of services in the area compared with

other similar places, and the existence of a greater number of employment opportunities.

Livelihoods in the host community are mainly pastoral (74%), but also strongly diversified as some

pastoral dropouts are adopting subsistence crop farming to supplement their incomes. The majority

(80%) of households own some form of livestock, though many have only a few.

The host area has seen a steep increase in settlement (annual population growth of 12% compared to

average growth of 9% in North Eastern Province) with profound impacts on migration and grazing

patterns.

Collection of firewood and building materials is undertaken by households of host communities and

camp populations alike, and both are engaged in buying and selling of the same.

The division of labour in host community areas is heavily gender-based. Men and boys herd and water

livestock, while women and girls collect firewood, fetch water for household use, take care of children,

handle the milk, prepare the food, and are responsible for other domestic chores.

Security in the host area is perceived as good and much improved over the last 10-15 years until the

recently witnessed banditry, hijackings and terrorists activities. People can move around in and outside

communities without any reported problems.

By far the largest contributor to host community income comes from pastoralism in the form of milk and

livestock sales. The refugee camps have developed as major local markets with considerable purchasing

power, and their livestock markets are now competitive with Garissa.

Commodity prices in the Dadaab area are significantly lower than in comparable parts of Kenya (dryland

towns). Reasons for lower prices of foodstuffs in the Dadaab area are: re-sale of WFP food rations

distributed to refugees, registration of host population as refugees in order to benefit from WFP food,

and cheap goods imported through Somalia.

Common household sources of food during the year were found to be: food assistance/aid, purchase,

and gift, respectively used by 32, 26 and 13% of the households.

The main sources of income in this area were: casual daily labour (23%), gifts/aid (18%), sale of livestock

and livestock products (15%) and remittance (14%) in that order.


The most reported expenditure line for the last 12 months period prior to the assessment was on food,

cited by 37% of the households; with water being the second most frequently reported expenditure

item covering 14% of the household expenditure.

The most common coping strategy according to the assessment was borrowing food or relying on

relatives or friends, closely followed by less preferred/less expensive foods. The least utilized coping

strategy is limiting portion sizes at meal times.

The most reported food expenditure item for the last 12 months period prior to the assessment was on

sugar, reported by 24% of the households. Grains were the second most frequently reported food

expenditure item covering 21% of the household expenditure.

The Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) indicate that only 4% of the household access highly

diversified diets (9-12 foods) while 59% of households have low diversity diets (1-4 foods).

Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS) using 8 food groups for children under five years at risk of

malnutrition indicate a very high level of poor diets (83%) among children in the host community.

Food Consumption Score (FCS) results indicate 28% of households with poor consumption at household

level and 48% falling in acceptable levels.

Health, water, sanitation and hygiene

The major sources for domestic water in the two districts are boreholes (74%), water pans (19%) and

shallow wells (7%).

The average water consumption has increased from 6 to 16 litres per person per day in the areas

assessed, partly due to decreased trekking distance to water sources. However, the cost of a 20-litre

jerrican of water has not changed significantly and is retailing at between KSH 2 and 5. In the open water

sources, like earth pans, there is no charge for use.

Close to 66% of the households (n=89) reported that they didn’t practice any water treatment practice.

Filtration was the only water treatment method used by 35% of households that access water from

earth pans.

The assessment also showed that hand washing before eating and after toilet use were the most

reported hand washing events by 55% of households.

Latrine coverage for Fafi and Dadaab was at 42%, posing a high risk of direct exposure to excreta and

high chance of contamination of water sources leading to disease and outbreaks.

Health services have been addressed by many of the organisations working with host communities in

cooperation with the Ministry of Health. The assessment findings indicate that leading causes of

morbidity for children under five years in the pastoral livelihood zone of Fafi and Dadaab districts were

respiratory diseases (37%), malaria/fever (16%), diarrhoea (15%), intestinal worms (12%) and skin

diseases (3%).


1. INTRODUCTION

The Dadaab and Fafi districts are situated in Garissa County, a semi-arid part of North Eastern Kenya, which has

a fragile ecological system. Located approximately 500 km from Nairobi and 80 km from the Somali border, the

Dadaab Refugee Complex has three main refugee camps (Ifo, Hagadera, Dagahaley), which cover a total area of

approximately 50 sq. km within an 18 km radius of Dadaab Town. The region surrounding Dadaab is semi-arid

desert with sparse vegetation and no surface water. Before the establishment of the camps, the area was used

as rangeland by nomadic livestock owners.

The camps were established in 1991/92 to cater to the influx of refugees from Somalia. At the time of the

assessment, a total of 148,297 refugees had crossed into Dadaab since January 2011, bringing the total

registered population to 473,299 (UNHCR, July report) by the end of July 2012. To accommodate the influx and

reduce congestion, two more sites (Ifo extension and Kambioss) were allocated, bringing the number of camps

to five. A total of at least 205,000 people are now living in the host community1, spread across an expansive

15628 km2 of semi-arid land (KNBS, 2009).

Somali refugees make up 97.5% of the entire refugee population in the Dadaab camps. Dadaab also hosts other

nationalities, including Ethiopians, Sudanese, and Congolese, as well as some refugees from Burundi, Uganda,

and Eritrea. Islam is the dominant religion, while Christianity is largely practiced by non-Somali refugees.

Although the Somali refugee population is comprised mainly of nomadic pastoralists, this population also

includes farmers from areas along the Southern Juba River valley, former civil servants, and traders.

Host and refugee communities overlap and their identities intertwine in a complex pattern. The two populations

share a common language, culture and religion, and in many cases clan and sub-clan identity, together with a

common-property approach to resources use across large swaths of land on either side of the border.

Livelihoods in the host community are mainly pastoral, but also strongly diversified. Households are applying

many different strategies to make ends meet. The vast majority own some livestock although many have only a

few. All households have some form of access to relief food distributed by the Red Cross/WASDA in the host

area and a large number of households have relatives in the camps or have access to refugee rations (either by

being registered as refugees themselves or by sharing with family members who have access to the rations).

Many households are involved in selling products to the camps or to other local people who have settled in the

immediate camp environs. These products include livestock, milk, firewood and donkey cart transport services.

Access to formal employment is only significant in the host communities immediately adjacent to the camps or

in Dadaab town.

The Dadaab environment is hot and dry for most of the year but also experiences unpredictable spells of

torrential rain. Soils are poor so productivity is low. While the area has no natural resources of high value or

biological endemism, a healthy environment underpins the fragile pastoralist livelihoods of the people who live

there.

1 Based on 2009, KNBS Census estimate 158,428 projections considering an average annual inter-censual growth rate over

the last 2.5 years of 11.7 % p.a. for Dadaab and Fafi districts


The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme (WFP) have been

working in partnership to ensure that food security and related needs of the refugees are adequately addressed.

WFP is responsible for the provision of the general food ration while UNHCR and its implementing partners (ACF,

CARE, Save the children, Oxfam, CRS, IRC, MSF, Handicap International etc.) provide health services, water and

sanitation, shelter, and basic non-food items both to the refugees and surrounding host community.

Additionally there are some formal avenues for negotiation and conflict resolution between host and refugee

community, but the larger part of such negotiations is informal and clan-based.

The presence of the three refugee camps—namely Dagahaley, Ifo and Hagadera in Dadaab and Fafi districts,

which together currently constitute the largest refugee settlement in the world—has major socio-economic and

environmental impacts on Dadaab town and on the surrounding areas. The three camps officially accommodate

an estimated 473,299 persons, predominantly Somali refugees, according to a UNHCR report (22nd July, 2012).

See Figure 1 for a location map and further detailed map of Dadaab camps and surrounding host communities

assessed (Annex 2).

In addition to the influx and large number refugees, long dry spells in which a large number of livestock die off

are a recurrent phenomenon in the host community area. Livestock numbers increase after such droughts and

most households expect a significant increase in their holdings as a result of good rains. These long rains

Figure 1: Dadaab location map. Dadaab complex comprises three individual camps: Ifo, Dagahaley and Hagadera. All three are within 18 km of Dadaab town, and between 5 and 10 km apart, covering a total area of 50 km2


commonly referred locally as “gulu” start late in March and continue into April and May. Major activities carried

out during long rains include selection of breeding livestock, restocking of livestock, and replanting of rain-fed

crops among agro-pastoralists.

The short rains commonly referred as “deer” occur in the months of October, November and December. The

main activities during the short rainy season include; calving and kidding, restocking of livestock, breed

improvement and planting of rain-fed crops.

Even though the Dadaab camps have been in existence for over 20 years, knowledge of their social, economic

and environmental impacts on the surrounding areas–positive as well as negative–remains anecdotal.

In spite of the largely scant and anecdotal information on impact of the three Dadaab refugee camps on

surrounding host communities, there are some indications of changes in environmental as well as socio-

economic patterns in areas around the camps. The locals, authorities, and aid agencies in the area are reporting

environmental changes as well as social-economic consequences, such as increased market and employment

opportunities.

As impacts of the refugee camps on host communities becomes increasingly apparent, increased attention from

donors, UN, NGOs and the Government of Kenya (GoK) is being given to the provision of services to the districts

around the Dadaab refugee camps. In this regard, ACF commissioned an assessment (11th June – 17th August,

2012) on the impacts of the three Dadaab camps (Ifo, Dagahaley and Hagadera) on the surrounding host

community areas.


2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. OBJECTIVES

The primary purpose of the study is to assess Food Security & Livelihoods (FSL) in the surrounding host

communities of the three major Dadaab refugee camps in North Eastern Kenya.

The immediate objectives of the assessment are to:

Assess the critical food security and livelihoods needs of the Dadaab refugee camp host populations (i.e.

host communities surrounding the three refugee camps, namely Ifo, Hagadera and Dagahaley, in both

the immediate short term (emergency response) and the medium to long term (early recovery and

livelihoods support).

Identify feasible and appropriate intervention gaps and provide recommendations for future ACF-USA

and other agency programme interventions in the region.

Contribute to the development of an integrated (FSL, NUT and WASH) strategy for intervention in

Dadaab linking emergency response to early recovery and potentially longer-term support.

The full assessment Terms of Reference are in Annex 3.

2.2. STUDY AREA

Dadaab’s three refugee camps are located in Dadaab and Fafi districts. Dadaab district has just recently been

carved from Fafi and Lagdera districts. Before 2007, the camps were administratively under the Garissa district

administration of North Eastern Province (NEP) in Kenya. NEP has a current estimated population of 2.8 million

people2 spread across an expansive 126,902 km2 of semi-arid land (KNBS, 2009).

The region has a flat topography with altitude ranging from 70 - 400 meters above sea level. The two districts

are classified as semi arid with annual mean temperatures ranging between 38° C and 42° C. The vegetation

ranges from scrublands to thorny thickets. Currently, the two districts are subdivided into two administrative

districts and divisions namely; Fafi (Bura, Galmagalla and Jarajila divisions), and Dadaab (Dadaab and Liboi

divisions). The districts receive a bimodal rainfall with a long-term average of 250 - 300 mm, with long rains

occurring in March to April and the short rains in October to December. However, rainfall is unreliable with

some short periodic torrential downpours which do not help in regeneration of pastures and which can cause

disease outbreaks.

The assessment identified 20 km radius of routine interaction between the refugee camps and the host

communities encompassing sections of Dadaab and Fafi districts for impact and FSL assessment, though impacts

are being felt as far as Garissa and even beyond. Two divisions, Dadaab and Jarajila, and 7 sub-locations

including Dadaab, Borehole 5, Block 0, Alinjugur, Dagahaley, Ifo, Welmerer were assessed (Table 1).

2 Based on 2009, KNBS Census estimate 2.3 million projections considering an average annual inter-censual growth rate

over the last 2.5 years of 8.8 % p.a. for North Eastern Province


District Division Sub-location Village

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula IOM

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula Day Day

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula Crash

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula Hud

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula Sudi

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula Kheir

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab California

Fafi Jarajila Borehole 5 Bula Weyn

Fafi Jarajila Block 0 Block 0

Fafi Fafi Alinjugur Alinjugur

Fafi Jarajila Alinjugur Bula Tinas

Fafi Jarajila Alinjugur Bula Dorley

Dadaab Dadaab Dagahaley Bula Nyanya

Dadaab Dadaab Dagahaley Labasigale

Dadaab Dadaab Ifo Bula Kheir

Fafi Jarajila Welmerer Alinjugur

Table 1 Assessment locations

2.3. SOURCES OF DATA

Data was gathered through quantitative and qualitative interviews, focus group discussions, and community

meetings in sampled settlements and surrounding areas. Key informant interviews were conducted in Dadaab

town (Dadaab district) and Hagadera and Alinjugur towns (Fafi district). Key informants, households interviewed,

locations and dates can be found in Annex 4. The questionnaires were administered in all sampled households.

Key issues captured in this questionnaire included household demographics, health and health seeking

behaviour, FSL and WASH. Anthropometric data was gathered from eligible U5 children in surveyed households.

Secondary data was obtained through desk study, meetings, and review of accessible information. The desk

study was based on reports, documents and other materials from government at national, regional and district

levels and from UN agencies and NGOs. Meetings were also held with a wide range of relevant stakeholders.

2.4. SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Two-stage sampling was used. In the first stage, the population dynamics of the assessment sites were obtained

to the smallest geographical unit, being a village, which were selected randomly. The sample sizes were selected

proportionate to the size of the villages.


To mitigate distortions in the assessment findings as a result of the presence of wealthy and well-connected

individuals in Dadaab town (host community), households were initially stratified by wealth groups and female-

versus male-headed households. Identification and classification of these wealth groups was achieved through

focus group discussions (FGD) prior to administering the household questionnaires. The FGD provided first-hand

key information on the criteria for village classifications. Stratification by livelihood groups or specific host

community characteristics was not considered in the assessment as the populations at the two districts are

considered very simillar in terms of livelihoods and the sites geographically close to one another.

The second stage involved identification of households. Dadaab and Fafi districts are vast and households in

most villages are generally far apart. As such, all households in the village to be sampled were randomly

obtained with help from the village elder.

A starting point was randomly selected and thereafter households identified through systematic random

sampling. Questionnaires were administered accordingly in each of the selected households.

Focus group discussions with community elders were conducted in two stages, the first of which was to establish

specific wealth group rankings for household representative interviews. Secondly, in-depth discussions were

conducted regarding the land tenure systems, adaptive strategies, the performance of crop and livestock

production, challenges and opportunities of different wealth groups, and priority areas of interventions, etc. In

total, 42 focus group discussions were conducted using semi-structured questionnaires with fair representations

of men and women.

A total 140 household representative interviews were conducted using structured questionnaires. The

interviews sought to achieve fair representations of gender and age. The interviews provided a deeper insight

and analysis into the household economy, production patterns, asset composition, coping strategies, access to

food, income sources, expenditure patterns, crop and livestock production challenges, and overall priorities.

Health, water, sanitation and hygiene aspects were also included in the assessment tool.

Key informant interviews were conducted with officials from district and sub-county administrations, district

agriculture, livestock and staff of different NGOs. In total, 10 key informant interviews were conducted using

checklists and semi-structured questionnaires. Additional interviews were conducted with traders (both retailers

and wholesalers), and livestock markets in Dadaab and Fafi districts were visited. Secondary information

collected and reviewed includes district agriculture and livestock department reports, NGO and UN agency

reports, and an array of published studies (see Annex 4 for key informant list).

2.4.1. ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE AND TRAINING

The entire assessment, from the identification of the assessment lead and drafting of the inception report to the

completion of the assessment and submission of the final report, was scheduled to take eight (8) weeks, from

11th June to 17th August. However, there were delays resulting mainly from insecurities in Dadaab and the

surrounding areas. Additional delays were a result of hesitance by UNHCR officials towards ACF assessment in

refugee camps. A total of three (3) weeks (9th to 28th July) were spent in the field (Dadaab) conducting

assessment trainings, administering questionnaires, entering data, and cleaning and drafting of the report. The

last three weeks of the assessment period involved finalising data entry, analysis, report drafting and

presentation of the assessment findings to the ACF program team in Nairobi. Detailed weekly activities for the

five-week assessment are as per the attached work plan (Annex 5).


Enumerators were first taken through two days of training and covered various assessment aspects such as

assessment methodology and interviewing skills. Standardization and pilot tests also formed part of this training.

The actual assessment was thereafter undertaken for 10 days by five teams of two enumerators per team. Each

of the five teams comprised of a data collector and an interviewer. Market assessment and observation were

also used to augment findings. A list of enumerators who participated in the assessment is as in annex 5.

2.4.2. FIELD WORK

The assessment exercise was undertaken from 17th to 28th July 2012. A number of activities were undertaken

during this period to include field mobilization, enumerator recruitment, planning, training, data collection (both

primary and secondary data) and data entry.

Enumerators were divided into two teams, one team focusing on focus group discussions and the second team

on household interviews. Each team was supervised by a team leader whose responsibilities were to coordinate

activities within the camps and cross check and verify data. In addition, the team leader conducted key

informant interviews.

Ten locally-based Kenyan enumerators familiar with Somali culture in addition to having Dadaab refugee camps

assessment experience were recruited and trained to administer the questionnaires under the supervision of

the team leader (consultant). Two days of training were conducted for the enumerators in Dadaab and consisted

of an in-depth review of the questionnaires, interview and data collection techniques, and how to conduct focus

group discussions. In addition, the questionnaires were pilot tested by each enumerator as part of the training.

In addition, the assessment questionnaires were translated into Somali language mostly used in the Dadaab

camps and surrounding communities, and which was extensively practiced during the two-day training course

for enumerators. The teams/enumerators also practiced translating the questionnaires into Swahili.

2.4.3. DATA ENTRY, CLEANING AND ANALYSIS

Daily data entry was undertaken in Nairobi using two hired data entry personnel under close supervision of the

consultant to ensure quality of data as entry progressed. This data set was eventually analysed. For all data sets,

outlier values flagged by the software were excluded from the final analysis. The household questionnaire data

sets were entered and analysed using Microsoft Excel.

Due to insufficient sample size on the anthropometric data collected in the framework of this study (MUAC), the

nutrition findings are inconclusive and therefore not presented in this report.

2.5. INDICATORS USED

2.5.1. FOOD SECURITY, LIVELIHOODS AND WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE

A structured questionnaire (Annexes 6 & 7) was used to obtain the above data from all sampled households.

Additional data collected included household economy, production patterns, asset composition, coping

strategies, access to food, income sources, expenditure patterns, crop and livestock production challenges, and

overall priorities. Health, water, sanitation and hygiene aspects were also included in the assessment tool.


2.5.2. HEALTH DATA

This assessment targeted all children aged 6 - 59 months in every sampled household. A questionnaire (Annexes

6 & 7) was used to gather the required data. This included:

1) Age: In absence of birth certificates, birth notifications, or baptismal cards to verify age, the local

seasonal calendar of events was used (Table 4).

2) Sex: This was recorded as either male (m) or female (f)

3) Illness: Assessed by asking each caretaker whether the child selected aged 6-59 months data was sick in

the two weeks prior to the date of the assessment. If the response was positive then the caretaker was

further asked regarding the type of illnesses and the responses were recorded.

2.6. DATA QUALITY CONTROL AND ASSURANCE

The first step towards ensuring data quality control and assurance was through enumerator training. The

assessment team underwent two days of training. The training focused on the objectives of the assessment,

assessment methodology and the meaning of each question, asking and recording of responses accurately, and

interviewing skills.

In addition, close monitoring and supervision of all five assessment teams were undertaken on a daily basis. This

was undertaken at the field level with daily data entry. At the beginning of each day, the assessment team

leader had a brief session with the assessment team to discuss the previous day’s work.

2.7. LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

Due to a lack of published statistical information, especially in relation to economics and trade, the assessment

was conducted using a bottom-up approach for the estimation of impacts. Generalizing from samples always

brings a risk of amplifying errors. However, the study ensured that figures were double-checked and

conservative estimates were always used.

The lack of reliable information on host community population, distribution and status meant that the

assessment had to make its own estimates of these figures based on the 2009 KNBS demographic results. This

resulted in new insights into social and demographic changes in the host area, but it should also be stated that

figures are estimates and have margins of error.

The other major constraint/risk was the prevailing insecurity in the Dadaab camps and host community during

the assessment period. This led to delays and some insecure areas not being adequately covered in the

assessment.

Finally, since the assessment happened during the holy month of Ramadan, assessment results concerning

consumption patterns, food sources, and expenditures for the month of study can only be compared to similar

festive seasons.


3. RESULTS

The populations of the two districts are considered very similar in terms of livelihoods as the sites are

geographically close to one another. As such, data from all the surrounding host communities (12 kilometers

radius of Dadaab town) was analysed as one unique group/livelihood zone that is overwhemingly pastoral.3

3.1. DEMOGRAPHICS

The household-level background demographic-related data collected include sex of household head, household

size, and educational status. A household was defined as a person or group of persons, related or unrelated by

blood, residing in the same compound, headed by one household head and eating from the same pot.

According to the sample assessment finding, the average household size was 6.5 persons.4 Household data

disaggregated by gender shows that male account for 53% and females 47% of the households. A closer look at

the data on household status disaggregated by age bracket shows that adults (age 18-60) are the majority by

47% followed by children (5-17 years), forming 33% of the assessed household population as shown in Figure 2

below.

Figure 2. Assessed household by age category

The assessment results in Figure 3 show that 21% of adults above 18 years are involved in crop farming. The

remaining 79% are reported to be involved in other activities other than farming.

3 A study conducted by the Royal Danish embassy, Gok and Norwegian embassy on socio-economic impacts of Dadaab

refugee camps on host community established that more than 87% of households cited pastoral production as their primary livelihood and 84% having no significant secondary livelihood (In search of protection and livelihoods, 2011). 4 A socio-economic study conducted by the Royal Danish embassy, Gok and Norwegian embassy on impacts of Dadaab

camps on host community found an average household size of 7- 8 people among the host community (In search of protection and livelihoods, 2011).

47%

33%

15% 5%

Age category

Adults (18-60)

Children (5-17)

Children below 5

Adults above 60


Figure 3 Adults above 18 years involved in farming

All local settlements assessed have a primary school and in all locations access to education was said to have

improved. Both boys and girls attend schools. Government, CDF and refugee agencies have all supported school

construction, usually with some community contribution (e.g. local materials). Where the government is not

providing teachers, typically in the smaller and more recently settled communities, teachers are employed

through community initiatives through a school fee top-up. The extended family structures that are typical of

the host area make it possible for children from mobile pastoral families to attend school by staying with

relatives. Assessment data on the educational status of household heads was collected and the result indicates

that a significant proportion of the household (87%) had not attained any level of education as shown in Figure

4.5

Figure 4 Educational levels of the assessed households

5 The Garissa district baseline study established that 88% of households had never attended school, 9% and 2% had attained

education up to primary and secondary levels respectively (Garissa district baseline assessment, 2011).

79%

21%

Percentage of adults above 18 involved in farming

Adults above 18 not farming

Adults above 18 farming

87%

8%

5%

Educational level

None

Primary

Secondary


Despite the improvement in educational facilities in the host communities assessed, the high rate of illiteracy

(87%) among household heads is most likely due to their inability to access educational institutions prior to their

settlement in present locations as a result of the recent droughts that caused livelihoods loss. In addition,

although a large percentage of the host community is mobile, investment in mobile education has been limited.

Finally, a key informant interview with a UNHCR official also pointed towards weak coordination between

agencies and government initiatives in addition to missing direction from the government. As a result, several

schools and health clinics are not staffed.

3.2. FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS

The most prominent ethnic groups in Dadaab and Fafi districts are Somali with a pastoral nomadic background.

Hosts and the bulk of the refugee population share a common ethnic background, of which a majority belong to

the Ogandan, Aulihan and Abdiwak clans. They are comprised of approximately 60% in settlements and 40%

mobile pastoralists. They keep all classes of livestock which include cattle (mainly Boran, Zebu, Sahiwal), camels,

goats (mainly Galla and small East African), sheep (mainly Black Head Persian), poultry and donkeys. The major

livelihood classifications are pastoral (camel, goats), pastoral (cattle and sheep), pastoral (all species), agro

pastoral and formal employment/casual waged labour/business, as shown in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5 Livelihoods of the communities assessed

3.2.1. LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

Livestock production contributes to about 80% of food and cash income of pastoral households in the two

districts assessed. In most of the host community, livestock are trekked long distances and a significant number

are moved to as far as Southern Somalia during the dry season for grazing and crossing back and forth over the

border depending on where grazing and water is available. The migration of pastoral production follows age-old

migration patterns, where the border between the two countries is not considered relevant as depicted on the

seasonal calendar and critical events timeline in Table 4 below.

26%

22%

5%

35%

12% Employment/casual/business

Pastrol (Cattle, sheep, goats)

Pastrol camel

Pastrol all species

Agro pastrol


Table 4 Seasonal calendar and critical events timeline of the assessed region

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

Migration of livestock for

pasture & water

Herd separation

Livestock marketing

Pressure on boreholes

Short rains

Selection of breeding

livestock

Wedding ceremonies

Weaving

Male circumcision

Long rains

Restocking livestock

Planting for rain fed crops

High labour demand

Destocking culling

Surveillance for

pasture/browse

Caravan water trekking

Breed improvement

Calving and kidding period

The seasonal calendar illustrates key features of the Dadaab and Fafi host community seasonal calendar. The chronic cycle of largely climatic shocks is

apparent. During the rainy season, grazing and foraging of host community livestock is largely restricted to the locations to which a particular household

belongs. During the dry season, however, grazing and foraging takes place further away, often several hundred kilometres away. In addition, other

activities taking place within a typical seasonal calendar are shown on the table.

Pastoral production in the host community is evolving towards more commercial off-take aimed at supplying the

camps. Specifically, the sale of milk has developed due to a ready camp-based market. Livestock has always

been sold into regional market centres, but clearly the proximity of new market opportunities in the camps has

further increased sales.

Droughts in which huge number of livestock deaths (30%) is a common phenomenon as remembered by several

of the households that were interviewed. A recovery period of 3-5 years with normal rains is needed to get

animal herds back to pre-drought levels.

The host area has seen a steep increase in settlement (annual population growth of 12% compared to average

growth of 9% in North Eastern Province) and as a result there have been profound impacts on migration and

grazing patterns. Migration as an essential component of the pastoral livelihoods is hampered by fast-growing

populations around water points with depleted grazing and browsing resources, by fenced-off areas of grazing

land and greenbelts, and by physical expansion of the camps and towns. Systems that regulate access to grazing

and water are dependent on clan affiliation and reciprocity. Nevertheless, few if any regulations are apparently

implemented to regulate access by livestock to certain areas during part of the season in order to conserve


fodder for other periods. This is probably linked to the concentration of population in the area and the

undermining of previous access control systems.

To assess the importance of the sector as source of food and livelihoods, sampled households were required to

indicate the type and number of animals owned at the time of the assessment. Figure 6 indicates the average

ownership per household for different types of livestock. The data indicates that most households own cattle,

goats, camels and sheep, respectively by 32, 29, 23 and 16%. The fact that sheep and goats (also known as

shoats) are kept by most households indicates the importance households attach to shoats as sources of cash

income and also food (milk). Moreover, shoats are adapted to the local ecology.

Figure 6 Livestock ownership by households

Although pastoralism and mobility is a vital feature of the local livelihood system, little is done in the host area

to support their mobile lifestyle. Rather, NGO and government investments in infrastructure and service

provision tend to be focused on settlements.

3.2.2. VETERINARY SERVICES

The respondents were asked how often their livestock get treated by a veterinarian or if they participated in

prior vaccination campaigns in order to gauge the availability of veterinary services in the host community. More

than 66% of respondents indicated that they do not have access to veterinary services in their communities. In

addition, 71% of households had not participated in any prior livestock campaigns (Figure 7).

29%

32%

16%

23%

0%

Livestock ownership

Goats

Cows

Sheep

Camels


Figure 7 Household access veterinary services & livestock participation in vaccination campaigns

Further, respondents were asked to list the three main challenges in terms of constraints to livestock

production. Access to veterinary services was listed as the main challenge to livestock production by 45% of the

households, followed by access to grazing land (30%). Access to animal watering points was the third main

challenge to livestock production (26%) as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Challenges in terms of constraints to livestock production

The above results generally point towards poor veterinary services among the host community.

3.2.3. CROP PRODUCTION

Crop production has been promoted by several agencies in the host communities. According to respondents, so

far the returns have been poor and no respondents had any positive experience of farming. Those who

participated did so because they were given free inputs and asked to take part, but were reportedly not

23

45

20

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Access veterinary services

No access to veterinary services

Past vaccination campaigns

No past vaccination campaigns

Household acces veterinary services & livestock participation in vaccination campaigns

44.8%

29.5%

25.7%

Challenges in terms of contraints to livestock production

Access to veterinary services

Acees to grazing land

Access to animal water points


provided with training. According to the results of a Garissa baseline assessment carried out in 2011, it was

established that despite the districts’ vast agricultural potential to be harnessed, less than 10% of agricultural

land has been exploited (Garissa district baseline assessment, 2011). The relatively low cost of foodstuffs in the

area, together with the high cost of crop production in such a dry environment (where irrigation water has to be

pumped and unit costs are high), means that farming is likely to be limited to kitchen gardening in compounds,

where domestic waste water is available.

Major crops grown include maize, cowpeas and green grams. Data on yields was not available. In areas with

irrigated crops, production is higher than average, with families consuming 3-4 meals per day compared to 1-2 in

normal seasons (Garissa District Short Rains 2011/2012 Assessment Report). However, despite the significance

to improvement of dietary diversity, irrigation is not extensively practised in the host community due to limited

water supply combined with the high cost related to irrigation farming.

3.2.4. MARKETS

The major markets in the Dadaab and Fafi district are Hagadera and Dadaab. No market disruptions were

reported in the year. Most cereals are being supplied from outside the district. The major markets hubs in are

Dhagale, Hagadera, Danyere and Dadaab (Figure 9 below). Market integration in the two districts has an

important bearing on food security and almost every district has at least one market that operates daily.


Figure 9 Dadaab and Fafi district market locations


Trade volumes have significantly reduced due to diminished purchasing power. Focus group discussions indicate

that households mostly purchase maize flour, rice, and beans for consumption, while goats and cattle are traded

for cash income. Other household items regularly purchased include oil, sugar, soap, tea and milk. The prices of

livestock in the market are significantly higher because most households are not willing to sell their stock. The

increase in prices was further aggravated by reduced supply of animals from across the Kenya-Somali border.

A study entitled, “In search of protection and livelihoods” established that there are around 5000 shops in the

refugee camps and 370 in Dadaab town ranging from petty traders to large wholesale outlets trading in all kinds

of goods (2011). Annual turnover of the businesses in the camps estimated to be around USD 25 million and

those in Dadaab town have a turnover of around USD 1.3 million. The income for the host community from the

milk trade is thus around KSH 85 million (USD 1.2 million) annually. Other than Dadaab market, no available

records on traded volumes in the Dhagale, Hagadera and Danyere markets were found. This is partly due to the

difficulty associated with estimating the volume of cross-border smuggled goods from Somalia that are

abundant of these markets. Common commodities traded include sugar, livestock, maize flour, rice, wheat flour,

cooking oil and powdered milk. The annual income accruing to the host community from the meat processed by

the slaughterhouses alone is therefore estimated at KSH 133 million (USD 1.8 million).

3.2.5. CATTLE PRICES

Cattle prices fell slightly in the study period as compared to the preceding month. Cattle cost KSH 14,800 in May

and KSH 14,000 in June as shown in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10 Long-term cattle prices against current year prices (Garissa and Dadaab Livestock and commodity markets)

3.2.6. GOAT PRICES

The price of goats decreased relative to the preceding month but still remain above the long-term mean for the

month. The trend is due to the increased supply of goats in the markets and reduced demand. Detailed

Jan Feb Ma

r Apr

May

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Dec

Cattle long term mean price 2000-2011

8500 8391 8344 8344 8470 8325 7479 7782 7635 7520 8600 9991

Cattle price 2012 12666 12876 13675 14660 14800 14000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Pri

ce p

er

he

ad (

Ksh

)

Months

Long-term cattle price against current year


information on the effect of livestock influx from neighbouring districts or effect of drought on market trends

was not readily available. The average price of goats was KSH 2,799 in May and KSH 2,608 in June (Figure 11).

Generally, the difference between long-term livestock/goat mean price over the last decade and 2012 prices

resulted from market liberalization, inflation, and the current depreciating value of the Kenyan shilling.

Figure 11 Long-term goat prices against current year prices (Garissa and Dadaab Livestock and commodity markets)

3.2.7. SHEEP PRICES

Sheep prices slightly decreased when compared with the preceding month. This may be a result of deteriorating

body condition due to the ongoing dry spells in the region and reduced number of traders in the market. The

price of sheep in May was KSH 2,078, but dropped down to KSH 2,032 in June (Figure 12). However, the price is

above the long term mean for the month.

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

Goats long term mean price 2000-2011

1294 1250 1245 1260 1234 1174 1140 1104 1121 1186 1297 1464

Goats price 2012 1845 1845 2375 2600 2799 2608

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Pri

ce p

er

he

ad (

Ksh

)

Months

Long-term goats price against current year


Figure 12 Long-term sheep prices against current year prices (Garissa and Dadaab Livestock and commodity markets)

Generally, livestock prices continue to decrease for cattle but increase for shoats in most livelihood zones in the

two districts. This can be attributed to the long dry spell in which cattle are herded deep in the rangelands while

shoats are maintained within household and used for immediate needs. In addition, the recurrent droughts have

had profound effects on the population in the Dadaab host community. Droughts, especially the one

experienced 2 years ago as one of the worst in the living memories of most respondents leading to significant

reductions in family livestock herds, have been another major reason for the current inflation in livestock prices.

Also, the assessment was carried out in the middle of the dry and cold period (Hagaa) with highest levels of

livestock migration, which might explain the high inflation in livestock prices. Finally, alternative production

systems such as agriculture have reportedly largely failed in the area leading to further livestock price inflation

due to lack of alternative food sources among households.

3.2.8. MAIZE PRICE

The maize price shows no change in trend when compared with the preceding month and is below the long-

term mean price for the month. This may partly be attributed to the supply of the product and purchasing

powers for diet diversification as most pastoralists have generally improved capacities in their diet

diversification. The price of a kilogram of maize was KSH 40 in May and KSH 40 in June, which was observed to

be the same in both of the two districts shown in Figure 13.

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

Sheep long term mean price 2000-2011

985 915 958 963 935 924 876 841 820 835 946 1155

Sheep price 2012 1483 1600 1730 1812 2078 2032

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Pri

ce p

er

he

ad (

Ksh

)

Months

Long-term Sheep price against current year


Figure 13 Long-term maize prices against current year prices (Garissa and Dadaab Livestock and commodity markets)

3.2.9. POSHO (LOCALLY MILLED AND JOGOO)

The prices of posho, which are both products of maize, remained stable when compared with the previous

month, but still above the long-term mean price for the month. The price of a kilogram was KSH 70 both in May

and June. This may be attributed to high cost of production and transportation (Figure 14).

Figure 14 Long term cattle prices against current year prices (Garissa and Dadaab Livestock and commodity markets)


Other commonly consumed commodities among the host community not analysed include sugar, rice and

spaghetti partly due to limited time and the security situation during the assessment in addition to the fact that

most of these commodities originate from Somalia illegally and very little statistical information is available.

However, future information can be sought from WFP, which has commissioned a market research analysis on

the above commodities among others.

3.2.10. WEALTH GROUPS RANKINGS

Better off households have one or more sources of income. They own on average 70 or more heads of camel,

100 cattle, and 70 or more heads of shoats. They also have money for livestock trading and provide minimal

labour jobs like animal herding, haulers, etc.

Poor households own a few heads of animals. They rely on livestock and livestock by-products as income and

food sources. Some also receive external assistance from relatives, private individuals or INGOs (Figure 15).

Others are engaged in farming or earn a small income from waged labour activities such as construction work,

hauling, fetching water, brick making, etc. The cutting of trees for firewood and charcoal production are other

common sources of income among poor households. Table 5 below shows the wealth breakdown of the

assessed host community.

Asset Poor households Better off households

Goats Less than 20 50-60

Sheep Less than 20 25-30

Cows Less than 10 8-15

Camels Less than 5 8-10

Donkey carts Less than 2 4-5

Land (acres) Less than 2 5-10

Businesses (Petty trade) – stock in KSH Less than 10,000 Over 20,000

Households in wealth group (n) 127 13

Table 5 Wealth groups among the assessed community

Poor households represent at least 90% of the communities assessed in Dadaab and Fafi districts as indicated in

the wealth ranking above. Poor households are those with multiple vulnerabilities including lower availability of

family labour, few or no livestock, and dependence on cultivation of a small plot of land. Poor households

depend on selling charcoal and casual labour to generate income. They are generally market-dependant with

weak purchasing power.

3.2.11. TERMS OF TRADE

Terms of trade (ToT) are the ratio of two prices—for example, the ratio of the price of livestock to the price of a

food staple, or the ratio of the cash crop price to the price of a food staple, or the ratio of daily wage for

unskilled labour to the price of a food staple. Terms of trade are favourable and have improved substantially

across the communities assessed (Table 6 below). For example, according to the commodity market prices


displayed in Figures 10 – 14, the average value of a head of cattle was greater than or equal to 211 kg of maize

in January. At the time of study, the price of cattle fetches 350 kg of maize, which constitutes on average an

increase of about 40 percent.

Table 6 Terms of trade of various commodities traded in host community markets

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Cattle prices 12666 12876 13675 14660 14800 14000

Maize prices/kg 60 55 50 45 40 40

ToT 211.1 234.1 273.5 325.8 370.0 350.0

Cattle prices 12666 12876 13675 14660 14800 14000

Posho prices/kg 75 75 70 70 70 70

ToT 168.9 171.7 195.4 209.4 211.4 200.0

Goat prices 1845 1845 2375 2600 2799 2608

Maize prices/kg 60 55 50 45 40 40

ToT 30.8 33.5 47.5 57.8 70.0 65.2

Goat prices 1845 1845 2375 2600 2799 2608

Posho prices/kg 75 75 70 70 70 70

ToT 24.6 24.6 33.9 37.1 40.0 37.3

Sheep prices 1483 1600 1730 1812 2078 2032

Maize prices/kg 60 55 50 45 40 40

ToT 24.7 29.1 34.6 40.3 52.0 50.8

Sheep prices 1483 1600 1730 1812 2078 2032

Posho prices/kg 75 75 70 70 70 70

ToT 19.8 21.3 24.7 25.9 29.7 29.0

3.2.12. FOOD SOURCES, INCOME SOURCES AND EXPENDITURE

During the assessment, respondents indicated their income sources and expenditure patterns in the last 12

months. The data presented have to be treated cautiously and provide only an estimate and the relative

importance of the different sources. In order to give a better picture, the data was analyzed and presented in

terms of proportion of households reporting the different sources, average income, and expenditure during the

reference period (12 months). Since the reference period was limited to one year as a whole (i.e. not broken

into periods) preceding the assessment date, seasonal and cyclic fluctuations weren’t captured. For more

reliable income and expenditure data all sources and seasonality have to be taken in to account, which was

beyond the objective of this assessment.


Assessed households identified the sources of food used in the year before the assessment. Among the six

common food sources were purchase, own production, food aid, food aid/assistance, exchange/barter and gift.

Households were asked to rank each source based on importance.

Proportional piling was also used to determine household’s income and expenditure. These two variables were

determined separately. In both cases a one-year recall period was used to determine the proportion of these

retrospectively. In all cases, the questions on food sources, income sources, and expenditure were asked to the

head of the household. This was followed by the calculation of percentages from the proportion in each food

source, income source, and expenditure category. The data was then analyzed by total number of households

assessed to enable the identification of specific vulnerabilities related to how groups source their food, income,

and expenditure in normal times and currently.

3.2.13. FOOD SOURCES

The common sources of food in the year preceding the survey as measured by proportional piling were food aid,

purchase, and gift from relatives, respectively used by 32%, 26% and 13% of households (Figure 15). Food aid

was identified as the single most important source by most households. This is confirmed by other recent

studies.6

Food source information tends to be seasonal; hence community sources are scarce during the dry seasons

(December to March and July to August) when food aid, purchase, and relying on gifts from relatives dominate

as food sources in most households. The assessment was carried out during the month of July—considered a dry

month—explaining the high reliance on food assistance/aid, purchase, and gifts from relatives as the main

sources of food in the community. During the wet/rainy season, major sources of food are either own

production or purchase from the market derived from income received from livestock or livestock products.

6 A 2011 FEWSNET report showed that as of September 2010, 27 percent of host community population possessed refugee

ration cards that enabled access to general food distribution rations within the camps. The Garissa district baseline assessment in 2011 indicates that more than 57 percent of the host community households depend on local relatives for food and survival.

32.1%

26.4%

12.7%

12.7%

9.1% 4.71% 2.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Food sources

Gathering wild fruits/hunting Exchange/barter

Own production

Social network/gifts

Other

Buy from market

Food assistance/aid


Figure 15 Food sources in the surveyed communities

The recurrent drought encountered in the past seasons has led households to depend on food aid. Dadaab and

Fafi district populations are food aid recipients and the survey result on sources of food clearly indicates a high

dependence on food aid. It is alarming that only a few households were able to identify own production as a

source of food, a sign of increasing dependence on food aid or purchase. With increasing prices of food,

dependence on the market compromises households’ ability to access adequate food.

The food sources data correlates well with the low HDDS measure. Majority of households assessed depend on

food aid, explaining the low level of dietary diversity among the host community members. According to the

WFP report, food assistance to the host community was mostly limited to wheat flour, maize flour, and cooking

oil (WFP Post Distribution Monitoring Report, 2011).

3.2.14. INCOME SOURCES

The major income source for the majority of households was casual daily labour, a source to 20% of households

(Figure 16). The second most important source based on the proportion of households reporting was gifts/aid

(18% of households), while the third most important source was sale of livestock and livestock products (15% of

households). Remittance was the fourth source of income for about 14% of the households.

Figure 16 Sources of income

Results on income sources and HDDS correlate, with the highest contributor to household income being casual

labour and gifts not fetching enough to access a diversified diet. Local wage rates for casual labour are high in

comparison with other parts of Kenya but still too low to afford a diversified diet for a 7-member household. For

example, while rates elsewhere for unskilled labour are KSH 200-300 per day, locals in Dadaab are reported to

demand over KSH 400 (In search for protection and livelihood, 2011).

3.2.15. EXPENDITURE

The most reported expenditure line for the last 12 months prior to the assessment was food, cited by 37% of

households (Figure 17). Water was the second most frequently reported expenditure item covering 15% of the

19.6 %

18.2%

14.8%

14.1%

7.9%

7.5%

6.6% 4.0% 4.0% 3.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Income sources

Sale of other produce etc

Cash crop sale

Loans

skilled labor

Petty trade

Salaried labor

Remittances

Sale of livestock

Gifts/aid

Casual labor


household expenditure. It should however be noted that like income, expenditure data covered only 12 months

prior to the assessment could be biased due to seasonality and missing expenditure lines.

Figure 17 Households general expenditure

3.2.16. FOOD EXPENDITURE

During the assessment, respondents were also asked to indicate household food expenditure in the last 12

months preceding the assessment date. The most reported food expenditure item for the last 12 months period

prior to the assessment was sugar, reported by 24% of households (Figure 18). Cereals were the second most

frequently reported food expenditure item, covering 21% of the household expenditure.

Figure 18 Food expenditure

37.0%

14.5%

11.2%

9.0%

9.0%

8.3%

6.0% 5.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

General expenditure

Buy productive assets

Other community obigations

Fuel

Transportation

Health

Education

Water

Food

24.44%

21.03%

17.27%

8.66%

8.43%

7.71%

6.64% 5.82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Food expenditure

Salt

Other

Fruit/vegetable

Cooking oil

Meat/fish

Milk

Cereals

Sugar


3.2.17. COPING STRATEGIES

Coping strategies are the actions people take to manage food shortages and other stressors to the household.

The Coping Strategy Index (CSI) is therefore used as a proxy indicator of access to food. The higher the CSI score,

the more food insecure the household.

In the assessment, the CSI was determined using a 7-day recall period, 5 coping strategies and their relative

severity. The sample households were asked if any coping strategies were used during the 7 days. The

households reported using a range of coping strategies, amongst which the most prominently used methods

included reducing the size of the meals, purchase food on credit/borrow from local vendors/relatives, and

skipping meals. When asked the frequency of use, most households reported frequently, 3-6 times in a week.

The use of these coping mechanisms indicates vulnerability of the households to food insecurity.

The most common coping strategies cited were borrowing food or relying on relatives or friends and relying on

less preferred/less expensive foods (27% and 26%, respectively) which constitute the less severe forms of coping

to deal with food shortage (Figure 19). Nevertheless, more severe forms of coping—such as restricting

consumption by adults, reducing the number of meals, and limiting portion size—were also cited by a significant

minority of households (12% to 21%).

Figure 19 Common coping strategies utilized by the community

3.2.18. DIETARY DIVERSITY

The assessment looked at diet diversity using 12 food groups over a 24-hour recall period. Findings by number of

food groups consumed are summarized in Figure 20.

26.7%

26.3%

20.6%

14.6%

11.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Coping strategies

Limit portions at meal times

Reduce number of meals eaten in a day

Restrict consumption by adults

Rely on less prefered food/less expensive food

Borrow food or rely on relative/friends


Figure 20 Household dietary diversity score among the assessed communities

The Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) indicate that barely 4% of the assessed households access highly

diversified diets (9-12 foods) while 59% of households have low diversity diet (1-4 foods). The mean HDDS for

the assessed community was 4.33. There is need for further studies to establish the HDDS trends in correlation

with income groups as no past measurements in the host community were available.

Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS) using 8 food groups and a 24-hour recall period indicate a very high

level of poor diets (83%) among children in the communities assessed (Figure 22 below). Only 2% of the children

under five years assessed had acceptable diet levels (6-8 foods). Many households with children under five years

continued to rely on cereals (35%) and milk (29%) as the main foods. These foods were sourced mainly from the

general food distribution and may help to explain the high level of poor IDDS.

Figure 22 Individual dietary diversity score of children under 5 years

58.73

37.30

3.97

High diversity (9-12)

Medium diversity (5-8)

Low diversity (1-4)

82.86

15.00

2.14

Acceptable (6-8)

Borderline (3-5)

Poor (1-2)


Market purchases are an important source of food, and high food prices have constrained access to adequate

food, contributing to high rates of under‐five malnutrition.

The Food Consumption Score (FCS), a measure of nutritional adequacy of consumption at household level,

looked at diet diversity using 10 food groups weighted by nutritional value over a 7-day recall period. Among the

assessed communities, 48% attained acceptable levels of consumption at household level, with 28% considered

as poor levels of food consumed. The remaining 25% lie on the borderline as shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23 Food consumption scores in the area assessed

The significant difference between the relatively better household food access situation shown by the HDDS and

FCS scores compared with the relatively worse child food access situation shown by the IDDS is likely to be in

part attributable to poor child care practices and young child feeding within the household. Further detailed

studies need to be carried out on childcare practices. No reported historical information on HDDS, IDDS, and FCS

among the refugee host community was available.

The Months of Adequate Household Food provision (MAHFP) measures the period of food availability at the

household level, measured 9 months per year. Among assessed households, the average MAHFP was 8.8,

indicating the community is food insecure more than 3 months of the year, which concurs with other indicators

as discussed before. 7

3.2.19. FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOOD AGENCY SUPPORT IN THE HOST COMMUNITIES

Several projects were reported by UNHCR as being supported in the host communities by refugee and

development agencies, including health services, education, water services, and environment support. However,

there were no reports of any food security and livelihood support projects in the host community (cf. Annex 8).

Interviews with the Dadaab district agricultural officer revealed that a number of development and

7 Since the assessment was conducted during the holy month of Ramadan marked by unusual food consumption habits, a

number nutrition and dietary indicators such as the HDDS, FCS and CSI may not be representative of the usual host community food consumption habits. As such these three indicators should only be compared with similar Ramadan festive periods. The IDDS may not have been affected as much by Ramadan festivities as this only involved the under five year olds who do not participate directly in the fasting.

47.5

27.9

24.6

Acceptable FCS

Borderline FCS

Poor FCS


humanitarian agencies have plans to support FSL projects in the host communities. The planned project

timeframes are short- to medium-term, lasting less than a year. The scope of the planned projects was not clear

as most of the project activities were still under design. For example, there were plans by the International

Organization for Migration (IOM) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to jointly support irrigated

horticulture production. Similarly FAO and the GoK were already in the process of identifying 15 farmer groups

to be supplied with farm inputs, tools, and fencing materials. Additionally, the GoK through Garissa

Rehabilitation Project (GRP) and with the support of WFP was in the initial stages of implementing a food for

asset program, which will involve water catchment rehabilitation, water bund reconstruction, and farm-to-

market feeder road rehabilitation. Finally, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) was in the process of sub-contracting

two local NGOs, FaiDA and RRDO, to support livestock restocking among the host communities at the time of

writing.

3.3. VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS

To assess vulnerability, the questionnaire provided quantitative data in the following areas: 1) Demographics,

education and assets, 2) Livestock holdings, and 3) Dietary diversity/consumption.

Table 5 below shows the vulnerability analysis among the female- versus the male-headed households in terms

of average age, average number of adults involved in farming, average livestock and land ownership, highest

education level of the household heads, and the average coping strategy index in the host community.

Indicator Description Male Headed Household (HHH) Female Headed Household (HHH)

Average age of household head Years 42 48.6

Average number of adults involved in farming 18-60 yrs 0.89 0.95

Average livestock ownership

Cows 12.3 4.1

Goats 11.2 4.5

Sheep 6 -

Camels 8.8 -

Land ownership Acres 4.9 0.75

Highest education level (%)

None 87.72 85

Primary 4.39 10

Secondary 7.89 2

Average Coping Strategy Index CSI 13.5 10.9

Table 7 Vulnerability analysis of female- versus male-headed households

Though vulnerability analysis results indicate that on average, female household heads are elder (48.6 yrs)

compared to the male counterparts (42 yrs). More adults seem to be involved in farming (0.95) in female-

headed households compared to male-headed households (0.89). This may be explained by female-headed

households engaging in extra-food generating activities as result of less average livestock and land ownership

seen in Table 7 above. Female-headed households also tend to be doing better in terms of coping strategy index

(10) compared to male-headed households (13). Further studies may be required to ascertain the trend.


Further, vulnerability analysis of female- versus male-headed households on the basis of Food Consumption

Scores (FCS) and mean HDDS are as shown in Figures 24 and 25 below.

Figure 24 Food Consumption Scores for the male- versus the female-headed households

The Food Consumption Score results indicate that male-headed households consume poor diets (43%)

compared with 28% among the female-headed households. The same applies to acceptable FCS where female-

headed households by 33%. However, male-headed households are performing better in terms of acceptable

FCS by 41% while the female-headed households acceptable FCS was 39%.

Finally, the mean HDDS of male- and female-headed households is as tabulated in Figure 30 below. The mean

HDDS for the female-headed household was 6.3 while that of the male-headed households was 5.4. Once more,

female-headed households fared off well compared to the male-headed households.

Figure 25 Mean HDDS of male-/female-headed households

43.14%

41.18%

15.69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Food Consumption Score - male HHH

38.89%

33.33%

27.78%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Food Consumption Score - female HHH

Poor FCS

Borderline FCS

Acceptable FCS

6.3 5.4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Mea

n H

DD

S

July, 2012

Mean HDDS for female versus male HHH

Female HHH

Male HHH


3.4. WATER SANITATION AND HYGIENE

3.4.1. WATER

Better access to water due to the camps is uniformly reported to be a positive development by the host

communities. Many of the water development initiatives have been supported by the agencies active in the

refugee operation. The ample supply of potable water from boreholes greatly influences pastoral production in

the area by decreasing mobility, attracting pastoralists from other districts, and changing the use of grazing and

forage resources.

In the assessment, households were required to indicate their main source of water, one-way travel time to

fetch water, as well as water treatment practices. It was established that the major sources for domestic water

in the two districts are boreholes (74%), water pans (19%), and shallow wells (7%) as shown in Figure 26.

Currently domestic water is readily available in boreholes, which normally run all year round. The assessment

results indicate that access to water has become easier, safer, and more secure for both people and livestock.

Figure 26 Various domestic water sources in the host community

The sources of water for livestock are natural depressions, shallow wells, and springs. Boreholes are operational

and are presently the main source of water for livestock among the assessed households. All livestock access

water daily due to free open water sources in the grazing fields. In some pastoral areas, such as Alinjugur, soils

cannot hold water due to high seepage rates and therefore boreholes are the main source of water.

Current trekking distances to water sources for domestic use is between 0.5 km and 3 km, which is within the

GoK’s standards. Waiting time is currently normal at between 5 minutes to 10 minutes compared to the

previous season (last year) of 30 minutes to 1 hour, while the standard waiting time during emergency situations

is 15 minutes or no waiting time during stable situation.

The cost of a 20-litre jerrican of water has not change significantly and is retailing at between KSH 2 and 5. The

Kenyan national average retail price of 20 litres of water is KSH 5. There is no charge to access open sources of

water. The average water consumption rate has increased from 6 to 16 litres per person per day in the pastoral

livelihood zone, an improvement which has been noted since 2011. On the other hand, during emergencies,

74%

19%

7%

Water points

Borehole

Water pans

Shallow wells


standard water consumption is 15 litres/person/day, while in stable situations the consumption is 30-60

litres/person/day, which is within the GoK’s standards for emergency and stable contexts.

Better access to water is uniformly reported to be a positive development by the host communities. Distances

reported (in terms of walking, cycling, driving, other) by respondents to access various social amenities including

water are shown in Figure 27 below. More than 67% of respondents access water points by means of walking.

Host communities are paying for water as they do elsewhere in Kenya, but prices are subsidised as they only

cover infrastructure maintenance and not the investment costs of the agencies. The payments are mostly made

through the respective village community associations/committees for water maintenance purposes.

Figure 27 Methods of accessing various forms of social amenities

According to the assessment, water source (borehole) maintenance was done mainly by the government, village

community committees, and NGOs. The community water committees take the lead with 41% water source

maintenance activities, followed by the GoK (26%) as seen in Figure 28 below.

42.0% 32.1%

4.7% 0.9%

32.0%

38.7%

53.8%

32.1%

26.0% 26.4%

41.5%

67.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Trading center Health services Distance school Water point

Other

Walking

Cycling

Driving


Figure 28: Water source maintenance

Safety of water depends on handling at home and treatment practices used at household level. Assessment

results indicate that close to 66% of the interviewed households (n=89) do not apply any of the water treatment

practices. However, filtration was the only water treatment method used by 35% of households that access

water mostly from earth pans (Figure 29).

Figure 29 Water treatment practices among the assessed communities

In order to assess households’ hygiene practices, the assessment first looked at hand washing practices in the

assessed communities. About 55% of the households reported hand washing before eating and after toilet use

as seen in Figure 30 below. This indicates fairly good knowledge of positive hand washing practices, perhaps

due to hygiene promotion in the camps.

41%

26%

28%

4% 1%

Water source maintenance

Water committee

Government

International agencies

None

Family

34.48

65.52

Water treatment

Filter

No treatment


Figure 30 Hand washing practices among the assessed communities

3.4.2. SANITATION

Lack of basic sanitary facilities such as latrines and or refuse disposal pose serious threats to health and

ultimately contribute to poor nutritional outcomes. During the assessment, latrines were observed in all

communities and are widely used, but overall coverage is still limited. They have mostly been constructed with

assistance of the refugee agencies through various host community programmes. The assessment results

indicate that latrine coverage for Dadaab and Fafi districts is 42%, which can pose a high risk of direct exposure

to excreta and high chances of contamination of water sources leading to disease and outbreaks.

3.4.3. HYGIENE

No major waterborne disease outbreak was currently reported. Aqua tabs have been distributed but they are

not being used at household level because of the taste and odour of the chlorine tablets. However, there is need

for knowledge building amongst the households on the importance of improved sanitation as well as water

treatment.

3.5. HEALTH

Health services have been addressed by many of the organisations working with host communities in

cooperation with the Ministry of Health (cf. Annex 8 for list of NGOs and activities carried out in each host

community). In most areas, key informants interviewed acknowledged that health services have improved in

terms of access, although there is a widespread shortage of nurses and medicines. Host community members

also use private clinics in the refugee camps and benefit greatly from the hospital services in the camps in

Dadaab.

14.71

54.90

23.53

6.86

Hand washing

After toilet

Before and after eating

Before and after eating/toilet visit

Before/after praying


The assessment findings indicate that the leading causes of morbidity for children under five years in pastoral

livelihood zone of Fafi and Dadaab districts were respiratory diseases (37%), malaria/fever (16%), diarrhoea

(15%), intestinal worms (12%), and skin diseases (3%) as in Figure 31 below.

Figure 31 Causes of morbidity for children under five years

4. DADAAB CAMPS SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN THE HOST COMMUNITY

4.1. LIVELIHOODS CHANGES

Livelihoods in the host community are mainly pastoral, but also strongly diversified with a majority of

households owning some livestock (although many have only a few). Many households also have some form of

access to relief food distributed agencies in the host area, and a large number of households have relatives in

the camps or have access to refugee rations (either by being registered as refugees themselves, buying from

refugees, or by sharing with family members who have access to the rations). Many other households are

involved in selling products to the camps or to other local people who have settled in the immediate camp

settlements. These products include livestock, milk, firewood, and donkey cart transport services. Access to

formal employment is only significant in the host communities immediately adjacent to the camps such as

Dadaab town.

Although the households in the host community adopt a range of different strategies to patch together a

livelihood, there is still widespread poverty in the area. However, the level of poverty is somewhat less

pronounced than in other parts of the North Eastern province, and the dependency on free food, services, and

projects is more pronounced than in other comparable pastoral areas.

4.2. PASTORAL PRODUCTION

36.8%

17.6% 16.2%

14.7%

11.8%

2.9%

Causes of morbidity for children under 5 years

Cough/respiratory diseases

Other

Malaria/fever

Diarrhea

Intestinal worms

Skin disease


The majority of host households are involved in pastoral production, and virtually everyone with more than a

few goats and sheep are keeping part of their livestock herd mobile. Livestock are trekked long distances and

significant numbers are moved to as far as Southern Somalia during the dry season for grazing, crossing back

and forth over the border depending on where grazing and water are available. The migration of pastoral

production follows age-old migration patterns, and the border between the two countries is not considered

relevant.

Pastoral production in the host community has lately developed towards a more commercial off-take aimed at

supplying the camps. Specifically, selling of milk has developed due to a ready camp-based market. Livestock has

always been sold into regional market centres, but clearly the proximity of new market opportunities in the

camps has further increased sales.

Droughts in which huge number of livestock die off is a common phenomenon as remembered by several

households interviewed. A recovery period of 3-5 years with normal rains is needed to get animal herds back to

pre-drought levels. Although pastoral production and mobility is a vital feature of the local livelihood system,

little is done in the host area to support mobility. Rather, NGO and government investments in infrastructure

and service provision tend to focus on settlements. More could be done in terms of supporting pastoral

production such as providing veterinary services (including veterinary outreach services and training community

animal health workers), creating mobile schools, establishing mobile clinics, developing stock routes, developing

livestock holding grounds, dispersing water development, developing access rules, and supporting customary

institutions for negotiation and regulation.

4.3. GRAZING AND BROWSING PATTERNS

The host area has seen a steep increase in settlement with profound impacts on migration and grazing patterns.

Migration is essential for the pastoral system but is being hampered by fast-growing populations around water

points with depleted grazing and browsing resources, as well as by fenced-off areas of grazing land and

greenbelts, and by the physical expansion of the camps and towns. Systems that regulate access to grazing are

dependent on clan affiliation and reciprocity. Nevertheless, few if any regulations are apparently implemented

to regulate access by livestock to certain areas during part of the season in order to conserve fodder for other

periods. This is surprising and probably linked to the concentration of population in the area and the

undermining of previous access control systems.

4.4. FIREWOOD AND BUILDING MATERIAL COLLECTION

Collection of firewood and building materials is undertaken by households of host communities and camp

populations alike, and both are engaged in its buying and selling of the same. Access to firewood is increasingly

difficult close to the camps and closest settlements. As the distances to good firewood increase, the collection

process has been taken over by men using donkey carts. Firewood collected in this way is exclusively for sale in

the camps and nearby communities.

Reducing and managing the collection of firewood and building materials has been addressed by organisations

and agencies working in the two districts, particularly by the UNHCR-funded programmes of GTZ. The most

prominent of these initiatives has been the organised programme of fuel wood purchase and supply to the

camps. In several communities, there is strong resistance to this programme from locals who find that they are

not benefitting because contractors bring in labour from outside (usually from the camps), while elders and


chiefs take the lion’s share of the funding, and the contracts further increase local competition for the available

resources.

4.5. EMPLOYMENT

Few people from the host community, except in Dadaab town and those settlements closest to the camps, have

ever had any formal employment. Some are now finding opportunities with local NGOs (RRDO and FaIDA) as

manual labourers in the fully donor-funded operation of tree nurseries. Host community members cite

employment as the most important positive feature of the operations of these and other refugee-related

agencies.

4.6. REMITTANCES

Findings from the assessment indicate that hardly any households in the host communities receive remittances,

with just a few examples in Dadaab town and settlements closest to the camps.

4.7. FOOD RELIEF, ACCESS TO FOOD RATIONS AND POVERTY

Food relief is widely distributed in the area and the operation is generally reported to be well implemented. The

food relief is shared among all host community members. The nature of the sharing system varies, but in some

places discontent has been expressed with the manner in which food relief committees were distributing rations

and how some people in need were being left out. Acquisition of refugee ration cards is widespread among host

communities. The closer to the camps, the greater the proportion of people holding rations cards.

4.8. TRANSPORTATION

The communities included in the study have all experienced improved transport in the form of buses, matatus,

pick-ups, private cars and “taxis”. Members of communities use these forms of transport to go to the camps to

trade, visit relatives, access health facilities and collect/buy food. Donkey carts are widely used to transport

firewood, building materials, food, and other products to and from the camps.

4.9. ELECTRICITY AND COMMUNICATION

Solar energy is installed in many mosques and in some schools and dispensaries. Shops providing mobile phone

charging services also use solar energy. Mobile telephone coverage is available in most of the visited host

communities.

4.10. GENDER AND AGE

The division of labour in host community areas is heavily gender-based. Men and boys herd and water livestock,

while women and girls collect firewood, fetch water for household use, take care of children, handle the milk,

prepare the food, and are responsible for other domestic chores. Little change is seen in the division of labour.

However, the increased access to schooling for girls has the potential to change these established divisions. Also

when people settle down in centres with less dependency on livestock in their day to day lives, the duties of

men and boys tend to reduce whereas those of women and girl remain the same or even increase (if they need

to go further for firewood or get involved in additional income generating activities now that pastoral

production is less prominent). This under-employment of males is a problematic trend and contributes to a

number of social problems (e.g. miraa chewing, smoking, and domestic debt).


4.11. FINANCIAL SERVICES

No other banks other than Equity Bank have established branches in the two districts. Savings and credit

services are nevertheless available through numerous money transfer and group-based schemes. There are

formal micro credit schemes in operation servicing both the local population and refugees and Hawala agencies

offer short-term credit to reliable customers. Many of these have a loyal clan base, reflecting the overall clan

ownership of the enterprise.

4.12. SECURITY ISSUES FOR HOST COMMUNITY

Security in the host area had been perceived as good and much improved over the last 10-15 years. People can

move around in and outside communities without any reported problems. Recently significant security threats

have been reported in form of robberies (57%), rebel incursion (16%), land conflicts (11%), and cattle rustling

(0.7%). However, 15% of those assessed were satisfied with the existing security situation (Figure 32).

Figure 32 Host community security situation

57.1%

15.7%

15.0%

11.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Security situation

Cattle rustling

Land conflicts

Satsfied with security

Rebel incursion

Robberies


5. CONCLUSIONS

The food security situation in the assessed host communities has improved due to positive impacts of above

average short rains in 2011. However, significant recovery of the food security situation is moderated by

sustained high food commodity prices that are above the long-term average prices. In addition, endemic

livestock diseases have also moderated livestock productivity across the assessed area. All livestock species are

currently in a recovery phase with communities trying to build up their stock.

Most temporal water sources have no water and there is immense pressure on boreholes. In general, trekking

distances to water sources have reduced from about 15- 25 km to the current 0.5-3 km.

Common household sources of food are food assistance/aid, purchase, and gift, respectively used by 32, 26 and

13% of the households.

The main sources of income include casual daily labour (29%), gifts/aid (18%), sale of livestock and livestock

products (15%), and remittance (14%).

The highest reported expenditure by households is on food, cited by 37% of the households, with water being

the second most frequently reported expenditure item covering 14% of the household expenditure.

Infrastructure is well developed in the host communities. Water supplies, schools, and clinics/dispensaries are

widely available and access to additional health facilities in camps is considered very important. Respondents’

perception of improvement to access of health facilities was divided, given that several dispensaries and mobile

clinics in the villages lack staff and medicines. In many cases, infrastructure established for refugee camps also

served the local population—for example, there are three camp hospitals to which everyone in the area has free

access. This is an exceptional opportunity compared with elsewhere in Kenya, where medical services can be

hard to access and expensive for users.

The security situation in the area is considered to be average despite the recent wave of violence from bandits

and Somali insurgents.

Impacts from the Dadaab camps are felt widely through trading opportunities and reduced food and commodity

prices. Likewise, refugees seeking opportunities outside the camps in faraway places maintain strong networks

within the camps. However, the most immediate impacts are felt within a 50 km range and the study defines the

inhabitants of this area as the host community.

Impacts on the host community in this area are complex and both positive and negative. Positive impacts are

related to access to distributed food, economic opportunities, and services, while negative impacts are largely

related to depletion of firewood and building material as well as grazing competition in the immediate vicinity of

the camps.

The Dadaab and Fafi districts have attracted a substantial number of people and therefore the host community

has grown very significantly. This is explained by general impoverishment in the drylands together with strong

pull factors in the area. These pull factors include opportunities for trade, access to subsidised food, access to

free food rations, and better level of services.


Livelihoods in the host area are widely diversified, but pastoral production remains by far the most important

strategy. Mobility is widely used in response to changing resource conditions, and livestock movements take

place within large areas of clan land or land with negotiated access in Kenya and Somalia.

Food relief is widely distributed in the area and is generally reported to be well implemented. Access to ration

cards for refugees is also widespread among the host population and constitutes an important part of their

livelihood strategies.

Host communities derive significant income from selling pastoral products to the camps (mainly livestock and

milk). Host community benefits from the availability of food at prices subsidised by the refugee operations are

significant. The savings on items imported from Somalia also constitute a significant economic benefit for the

host population.

The environmental impacts from firewood and building material collection associated with the camps and

nearby host populations are very significant within the first 10 km from the camps, still highly visible within the

10-20 km radius, and gradually diminishing with little impact on standing volumes at 50 km. There are major

impacts on biodiversity regardless of the distance from the camps. Accessing firewood and building material is

increasingly difficult for both refugees and host communities. Likewise, grazing and browsing is negatively

affected by the cutting of live trees. Water abstraction is close to the level of sustainable yield and care should

be taken in increasing the abstraction volume from boreholes and with the way water is used.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations recognize that many of the underlying causes of current food and livelihood insecurity

in Dadaab and Fafi districts (climatic variability, refugee crisis) are structural and may be beyond the scope of

any one agency to address. However, based on findings and conclusions of the assessment, the following

preliminary recommendations are presented.

Food Security and Livelihoods

Support to host communities should focus on developing pastoral production, pastoral trade, and, above all,

mobility. It could include support to veterinary services (including veterinary outreach services and training

community animal health workers), mobile schools, and mobile clinics; development of stock routes,

livestock holding grounds, dispersed water sources, and access rules; and supporting customary institutions

for negotiation and regulation.

Promotion of fodder conservation and haymaking should be supported in host communities by the agencies

and GoK in addition to vaccinations, treatments, and restocking in some areas.

Income generating activities (with either a positive or a low negative environmental impact) and income

diversification should be piloted to explore the dynamics of how individuals engage with the activity and

how best to promote such activities on a larger scale in the future.


Fuel efficient stoves and nutritious cooking demonstrations should also be promoted among the host

communities at household level to reduce fuel needs and encourage more nutritiously balanced food

preparation.

Crop farming is highly dependant on rainfall contrary to the fact that rainfall is highly unreliable, resulting in

crop failure risks. As such, communal kitchen gardens should be supported as these can easily be watered

using runoff from shallow wells and boreholes.

Host community dietary diversity is limited. One of the ways to promote increase dietary diversity is by

planting drought-tolerant crop varieties (e.g. cowpea and green gram) that have demonstrated strong

performance during periods of low and erratic rainfall in the area. Educating communities on the

importance of diversified diets to reduce the risk of malnutrition should be supported.

Support to longer-term access to savings and microfinance services should be explored.

Strengthen animal production through community animal health workers, pastoralist field schools, or

vaccination campaigns; these should be undertaken in coordination with the Government Veterinary Offices

in each district and sub-county. Strengthening the livestock sector may also contribute to the poorest

households by creating income opportunities, such as exchanging labour for animal products.

Health and Nutrition

Agencies and the GoK should support access to prevention, detection, referral, and treatment of acute

malnutrition throughout the host communities for acutely malnourished children at all levels of the health

system.

WASH

Water is a scarce resource, with inadequate quality and quantity particularly during the dry season. As such,

supporting the construction/provision of water storage services would contribute to easing the water

problem. Support should also be considered in ensuring that water is safe through the introduction of

improved and simple water treatment practices, especially in areas that do not have access to boreholes,

and increasing awareness of proper water handling practices through hygiene promotion.

Increasing latrine coverage and hygiene promotion to ensure their proper usage should be supported as this

would contribute to improved hygiene and health.

General Strategic Considerations

A more developmental and long-term approach to working in the host areas should be considered, moving

from short-term humanitarian-style thinking towards integrated development interventions. Humanitarian

agencies should develop longer-term plans and joint implementation approaches, development actors with

pastoralist specialisations should be approached to work in the area, and organisations open to actual

implementation through projects on the ground should be prioritised. Close harmonisation and coordination

of humanitarian work with development programming is required. Participation of humanitarian agencies in

the various district development processes, including the District Steering Groups and District Development


Committees, and presentation of their opportunities for contribution more openly will contribute to such

harmonisation.

Support to host communities by agencies and the GoK should be better coordinated. This can most

effectively take place if the point of departure is the host community locations and their own planning

processes. Efforts should therefore be made to support empowerment in localised planning and

implementation and common pooling of funding by the various agencies into a “Local Development Fund”

for each community. Such a fund should have its major focus be on financing activities that improve

production and income generation, which in most cases are related to pastoral production. A continued

emphasis on infrastructure is not required and will exacerbate high population growth rates and the shift

from mobile pastoralism to sedentary lifestyles and handout dependency.

Support to communities further away from the camps should be prioritised over further investments in

those nearby, not only as a matter of equity but also because the population in and around Dadaab is

unsustainable and pull factors to take people further away would be helpful.

The informal clan-aligned arrangements for negotiation between host communities and camp populations

should be given more formal status and more should be done to support regular and open dialogues

between the two populations. The successful operation of the Dadaab refugee camps over a long period of

time in a difficult area has depended on the existence of formal and informal avenues for settling disputes

and negotiation. Supporting such institutions for dialogue is clearly a crucial aspect in addressing other

situations of refugee/host interactions in other parts of the world.

In order to decrease dependency and reduce the Dadaab pull factor, the provision of free food to host

communities through refugee ration cards should be scaled down through development of a system that

ensures ration card holders are actually present at food distribution and do not send delegates.

Further development of greenbelts around the camps should be avoided as they are not making a significant

contribution to environmental management and represent privatisation of the range to the detriment of

pastoral production. Any investments in fenced fodder banks should permit broad-based access and not

become private grazing areas.

Firewood contracting should be re-strategized in order to break long-standing structures that work against

local benefit. Contracts should be made only with communities where firewood is actually present and

should be more focused on facilitating access of common people from the actual communities to sell

firewood to the contractors, not merely camp-based donkey carts. Otherwise, the operation is nothing but a

costlier version of the system that already operates spontaneously from the camps and its original security

and environmental justifications are invalid.


ANNEXES

Annex 1: References

1) Famine Early Warning System Network, 2011

2) Garissa district baseline assessment, January 2011

3) Garissa District Short Rains 2011/2012 Assessment Report – February 2012

4) Garissa District Strategic Plan (2005 – 2011) In search of protection and livelihoods. Socio-economic and

environmental impacts of Dadaab refugee Camps on host communities, 2011.

5) Kenya National Bureau of Statistics: Percentage of households possessing various forms of household

effects, means of transportation, agricultural land, livestock/ farm animals by residence, Kenya (2008 –

2009)

6) KNBS, Census Reports. Volume 1B, 2009

7) UNHCR, Dadaab camp population statistics by sex, country of origin and age group (22nd July, 2012)

8) WFP Post Distribution Monitoring Report, Nov-Dec 2011


Annex 2: Overview of Dadaab refugee camps and host communities assessed

(Source UNHCR, 2012)


Annex 3: Terms of Reference for the Study

DADAAB FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS ASSESSMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE

This Terms of Reference (ToR) define the objectives, key issues to consider, expected outputs, projected work plan and requirements for a Food Security & Livelihoods (FSL) assessment in the Dadaab refugee camps in North Eastern Kenya.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the critical food security and livelihoods needs of the refugee and host populations in Dadaab in both the immediate short term (emergency response) and the medium to long term (early recovery and livelihoods support)

To identify feasible and appropriate program interventions in order to effectively address critical needs

To contribute to the development of an integrated (FSL, NUT and WASH) strategy for intervention in Dadaab linking emergency response to early recovery and potentially longer term support

EXPECTED OUTPUTS

Analysis of the food security and livelihoods situation for refugee and host populations, including current status and projected evolution in the short to medium term (3-6 months)

Vulnerability analysis of refugee and host populations including identification of groups most at risk

Mapping of FSL actors and activities (current and planned)

Response analysis to determine appropriate and feasible program interventions taking into consideration priority needs, objectives, timeframe required, target population and acceptability (e.g. timeframe, host/refugee relations, security, political context) – this will look at the different levels of interventions (emergency, early recovery, livelihoods support etc)

KEY ISSUES

The following is not comprehensive but covers some of the main issues to be considered in terms of data to be collected and analysed:

Demographic profile of existing and incoming refugee population including household size, head of household, household composition (numbers of women, men, children, elderly, pregnant/lactating women), age range, education levels etc

Current and projected numbers of new arrivals to Dadaab, including timeframe, peaks, and estimates on total expected population (this can also include projections on how long the new arrivals are expected to remain in Dadaab, likelihood/timeframe for returns)

Demographic profile of host population; separate consideration may possibly also be given to long-term refugee population (i.e. those who have been there for 10-20 years)

Impacts of the influx of refugees on the host and long-term refugee population (food access, markets, environmental and resource pressures, conflict and tensions etc)

Profile of key livelihoods and assets of the host population and drought impacts on the same

Food assistance to refugee and host populations to include: recent/current distributions, coverage, current and projected pipeline and potential for breaks, rations provided etc

Food consumption: sources, diversity, quantities, number of meals per day etc

Local agricultural production (crops and livestock) – actual/potential


Market analysis to include: number and size; accessibility; availability of essential food and non-food items; functionality; trade flows to the area; evidence of any scale-up or increases in volumes of trade to correspond with refugee influx; market and trader capacities to manage increased volumes/trade; any obstacles/bottle-necks affecting market functionality

Mobile phone network coverage and providers

Financial institutions operational locally (banks, remittance agencies, mobile banking agents etc)

Environmental resources (water, biomass fuels etc), including access and availability, rates of depletion, security and gender issues with relation to collection/access

Agencies on the ground and type/scope/timeframes/plans for assistance – including gaps in assistance in terms of locations, needs etc

Identification of coordination mechanisms and forums in place and functionality


Annex 4: Households and key informant interviews List of household interview locations

District Division Sub-location Village Nbr interviews

Dadaab Dadaab Bula Kheir Bula Kheir 1

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula Califonia 3

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula crash 12

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula day day 18

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula hud 7

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula iom 1

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula Kheir 9

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab Bula risala 1

Dadaab Dadaab Dadaab bula Sudi 2

Dadaab Dadaab Dagahaley Bula nyanya 11

Dadaab Dadaab Dagahaley Labasigale 23

Dadaab Dadaab Ifo Bula Kheir 5

Fafi Alinjugur Alinjuour Allen 2

Fafi Fafi Alinjuour Alinjuour 2

Fafi Jarajila Alinjuour Bula Dorley 1

Fafi Jarajila Alinjuour Bula Tinas 4

Fafi Jarajila Block 0 Block 0 6

Fafi Jarajila Borehole 5 Bula weyn 27

Fafi Jarajila Jarajila Bula Tinas 2

Fafi Jarajila Welmarer Alinjugur 2

Fafi Larajila Alinjuour Alijugur 1

TOTAL 140 Key informant information list

Name Institution Designation District Date

Mr. Henry Anjila GoK District Livestock officer Dadaab 07/20/2012

Satdow Kasai GoK District Agricultural officer Dadaab 07/20/2012

Benard Ole Kipury GoK District officer 1 Dadaab 07/27/2012

Peter Briggs Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Head of base Dadaab 07/27/2012

Mofat Kamau Danish Refugee Commission Livelihood Coordinator Kambioss 07/23/2012

Fatah Gure Private Businessman Fafi 07/26/2012

Dola Mohamud Private Businessman Fafi 07/26/2012

Saida Mohamed Private Businessman Dagahaley 07/25/2012

Bare Nur Private Businessman Dagahaley 07/25/2012

Natha Sahal Gok Ministry of water Dadaab 07/24/2012

Mohamed Hirsi GoK Health worker Dadaab 07/24/2012

Geofrey Olunga ACF Field coordinator Dadaab 07/09/2012


Annex 5: Assessment schedule and List of enumerators Activity Date Responsible

Finalize inception report and assessment tools to FSL Coordinator

29th June Team Lead (consultant)

Feedback on inception report and assessment tools

3th July FSL Coordinator and consultant

Team lead (consultant) travel to the field (Dadaab)

09th July Team lead, ACF Dadaab field coordinator and ACF, Nairobi Logistics department

Recruitment of four (10) enumerators

9th -13th July Team lead (consultant), ACF Dadaab field coordinator

Training of enumerators 16 – 18th July Team lead (consultant)

Assessment pre-test 19th July Team Lead and enumerators

Assessment commencement 19th -28st July Team lead and enumerators

Team lead travels back to Nairobi 29th July Team lead (consultant)

Data entry, cleaning and initiation of final report drafting

1-12th August Study team

Draft report circulated for comments

12th August Consultant

Commenting on draft report incl. further development of recommendations by ACF team

20th August ACF team

Final report 29th August Team lead (consultant)

Presentation of report 05th September Team lead (consultant)/ACF team

1 Abdirahman mohamed

2 Khalif Abdullaahi

3 Mohamed Abdullahi

4 Saadia Hamdow

5 Ali Mohamed

6 Farhiya Abdiyoni Abdi

7 Hassan Mohamed Rage

8 Fatuma Abdi Mohamed

9 Hassan Mohamed

10 Muhiyadin Abdi


Annex 6: Household questionnaire HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY ASSESSMENT TOOL – HOST COMMUNITY

Questionnaire Serial Number (HOUSEHOLD NUMBER):……………………………………………………………………………………………

IDENTIFICATION

Name of Enumerator: Date of Interview:

Geographical data

District Sub-location

Division Village

SECTION 1A. HOUSEHOLD DATA

1.1 Category of Household: 1. Returnee 4. Other

2. Refugee

3. Resident

1.2 Name of respondent

1.3 Relationship of respondent to Household Head (HHH)

1. I am the Household Head 2. My spouse 3. My parent

4. Other (Specify)

1.4 Age of HHH (completed years)

1.5 Gender Male Female

1.6. a Highest education level of HHH (male HHH) 1. Primary School 2. Secondary school

1.6. b Highest education level of HHH (female HHH)

1.7 Number of Adults in HH (18 – 60 years) Male Female

1.8 Number of Children in HH (5 - 17 years) Male Female

1.9 Number of Children in HH (Below 5 years) Male Female

1.10 Number of Elderly in HH (Above 60 years) Male Female

1.11 Number of Adults in HH (Above 18 years) involved in (farm or off-farm) work that supports family

Male Female

1.12 Health status of HHH 1. Good health 2. Chronically ill 3. Disabled

1.13 Marital status of HHH 1. Married 2. Divorced 3. Widow

1.14 Family type 1. Monogamous 2. Polygamous 3. Other

1.15 Number of children 6-59 months being sick over the past two weeks

1.16 What kind of disease do you think it was 1. Cough/respiratory disease 2. Diarrhea 3. Malaria/fever

4. Skin disease 4. Eye disease 5. Other


C. Security

C.1 To what extent are you satisfied with the security situation in your area?

1. Very satisfied 2. Fairly satisfied 3. Not satisfied

(If response 1 skip to section 2, 2.1 else C.2)

C.2 What aspects of security are you dissatisfied with?

1. Too many robberies 2. Threat to rebel incursion

3. Violent land conflicts 4. Cattle rustling

5. Other (Specify)…………………………………………………………………….

C.3 How is the current security situation affecting your household?

1. We can’t resettle on our land

2. We constantly live in fear

3. We can’t move easily

4. We can’t be as productive as we would like

6. Other (Specify)

SECTION D – WEALTH RANKINGS

Wealth group Poor Middle Better-off

D1. Agriculture – land area (acres)

D2. Livestock – size herds

D3. Water pump ownership

D4. Other (Specify)

SECTION 2 A – HOUSEHOLD DIETARY DIVERSITY AND FOOD SOURCES

Read: I would now like to ask you a few questions about food consumption in your household

2.A1 How many meals did the adults in this household eat yesterday? (18 years and above) meals

Meal = Number of eating occasions

2.A1.1 Type of meal eaten: ( Yes = 1, No = 0 )

Could you please tell me whether in the past 24 hours your household has eaten the following foods and what the source was (use codes on the right, write 1 for items eaten over the last 24 hour and for 0 items not eaten over the last 24 hour?

Food Item Eaten Last 24 h

2.A2 Cereals (Sorghum, millet, bulga wheat, bread, maize, pasta, spaghetti, rice…)

2.A3 Roots and tubers (potatoes, yams, manioc, cassava….)

2.A4 Vegetables (Tomatoes, Okra, sukuma wiki, pumpkin leaves, cowpea leaves, spinach, Egg plants……)


2.A5 Fresh fruits (mango, pawpaw, watermelon, passion, Shea nut ….)

2.A6 Meat and Offal (beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit wild game, chicken, duck, wild meat …..)

2.A7 Eggs

2.A8 Fish (fresh or dried fish or shellfish)

2.A9 Pulses, legumes (beans, peas, lentils, green grams, cowpeas, dried peas…)

2.A10 Milk or other milk products (Goat, camel, fermented milk, donkey milk, powdered milk, Yogurt, butter ….)

2.A11 Oil (Including from groundnuts, sis sim, sunflower, shea nut), fat, butter, goat’s fat, sheep’s fat, margarine

2.A12 Sugar, Sugar cane, glucose, or honey

2.A13 Other foods, such as condiments, coffee, tea

Total

SECTION 2 B – INDIVIDUAL DIETARY DIVERSITY (CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS)

(Ask the mother or caregiver) What foods has the child eaten yesterday during the day or night?

1 = Yes 0 = No

Food Item Eaten Last 24 h

2.B1 Infant formula, milk (Other than breast milk, cheese or yoghurt such as tinned powdered, or fresh animal milk)

2.B2 Foods made from grains, roots and tubers – Porridge made from CSB/Unimix, gruel, fortified baby food from grains (Millet, sorghum, maize, other local grains), bread pasta, biscuits ugali, mandazi, rice, chapatti, noodles, white potatoes, anjera, white yams, manioc, cassava, etc)

2.B3 Vitamin A – rich fruits and vegetables (and red palm oil) – Yellow and red orange foods e.g. pumpkin, carrot, squash, sweet potato, ripe mango, watermelon, pawpaw, sukuma wiki, cowpea leaves, spinach, avocado, ripe papaya; dark green, leafy vegetables e.g. cassava leaves, bean leaves, amaranth leave; foods made with red palm oil, palm nut, palm nut pulp sauce

2.B4 Other fruits and vegetables (onions, tomatoes, cabbage, oranges, bananas, Okra, wild fruit)

2.B5 Meat poultry, fish shellfish and organ meats – Goat, camel, sheep, cow, chicken, Donkey, liver, kidney, blood, wild meat, heart, fresh or dried fish or shellfish, grubs, snails, insects or other small protein foods etc

2.B6 Eggs (To be filled in with locally available foods)

2.B7 Legumes and nuts (beans, peas, lentils, green grams, groundnuts, cowpeas, seeds etc…)


2.B8 Foods made with oil, fat, butter (simsim, camel fat, goat fat)

TOTAL SCORE (0-8)

SECTION 2 C - COPING STRATEGIES

In the past 7 days, if there have been times when you did not have enough food or money to buy food, how often has your household had to:

Frequency Score

(0-7)

Severity Score

(1-3)

Weighted Score

(F * S)

2.C1 Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods?

2.C2 Borrow food, or rely on help from a friend or relative?

2.C3 Limit portion size at mealtimes?

2.C4 Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat?

2.C5 Reduce number of meals eaten in a day?

Total Household Score

SECTION 2 D - FOOD CONSUMPTION

A B FCS

How many days, in the last 7 days, have you eaten the following

Food items?

Number of times 0 – 7 Weighting

Food Consumption Score Calculation

(AxB=FCS)

2.D1. Cereals and Tubers (sorghum, maize, pasta, rice, wheat, bread, anjera, spaghetti)

2

2.D2. Pulses, legumes or nuts (beans, lentils, green grams, cowpeas, dried peas)

3

2.D3. Vegetables (pumpkin leaves, cowpea leaves, spinach, sukuma wiki etc)

1

2.D4. Fruits (mangoes, papaya’s watermelon, etc)

1

2.D5. Meat and Fish 4

2.D6. Milk (goat, cow, camel, powdered, fermented milk, donkey milk etc)

4

2.D7. Sugar (sugar, honey, glucose etc)

0.5

2.D8. Oils (cooking fat/oil, butter, ghee, margarine, goat’s

0.5


fat, sheep’s fat)

2.D9. Condiments 0

SECTION 2 E - FOOD ACCESIBILITY

2.E1. I would like to ask you about your household’s food supply during different months of the year. When responding to these questions, please think back over the last 12 months, from now to the same time last year. (Circle the answer given)

Yes No

Were there months, in the past 12 months, in which you did not have enough food to meet your family’s needs?

1 0

If the answer is no, discontinue questioning.

If the answer is yes, proceed to Q2.

2. E2. Which were the months in the past 12 months during which you did not have enough food to meet your family’s needs? (include any kind of food from any source, including own production, purchase, exchange, from food aid, or borrowing) (Do not read the list of months out. Circle the months that the respondent identifies as months in which the household did not have enough food to meet their needs. Use a season calendar if needed to help the respondent remember different months. Probe to make sure the respondent has thought about all the past 12 months.)

1 July 8 January

2 August 9 February

3 September 10 March

4 October 11 April

5 November 12 May

6 December 13 June

Total months (insert total number of months circled as months without enough food)

SECTION 3 A - Proportional Piling (Food sources, Income sources and Expenditure

3. A1. Food Sources Before Now

Own production

Buy from Market

Social networks, gifts

Exchange and butter

Gathering wild foods and hunting

Food assistance

Other (specify)

Total 100 100

3. A2. Income Sources Before Now

Sale of cash crops

Sale of livestock/products

Sale of any other produce, wild foods, fisheries, honey, handicrafts, services


Casual labour

Skilled labour

Salaried work

Petty trade and commerce

Loans

Gifts and Aid

Remittances

Total 100 100

3. A3. Expenditure (Food and other items) Before Now

Food

Fuel

Water

Education

Health

Transportation

Purchase of productive assets

Other community obligations

Total 100 100

3. A4. Food expenditure Before Now

Meat/Fish

Salt

Sugar

Cooking oil

Fruit and vegetables (bananas, onions, tomatoes, etc)

Milk

Grains (rice, bread, maize etc)

Other (specify)

Total 100 100

SECTION 4 A - WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE

Homestead Pasture

4.A1. First water source type:

4.A2. User: Drinking/Cooking/Washing/Bathin Drinking/Cooking/Washing/Bathing/Agriculture/L


g/Agriculture/Livestock ivestock

4.A3. What volume do you collect (specify liters per day or week

4.A4. Distance/reliability (seasonal)?

4.A5. Second drinking water source, if no water at first

4.A6. How is the source maintained

4.A7. Do you treat drinking water (boil, filter, etc.)?

Defecation place:

4.A8. If no household latrine, why?

4.A9. When do you wash your hands?

4.A10. Prevalence of diarrhea/malaria/other waterborne diseases (# people in household in last 2 weeks, number of children)

Source (s) Distance/Reliability

4.A11. Who disseminates health/hygiene information

4.A12. What are the key messages?

4.A13. Needs/constraints (water, sanitation, hygiene)

SECTION 5 A – CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION

Child Health and Nutrition (Children 0-59 months of age) –( The mother/caretaker should be asked for this section)

5.A1

Does the household have children 0-59 months old? 1. Yes 2. No (if No, skip to section 5. A2)

5.A2

Did any of your child (ren) 0-59 months old have had sickness during the past 2 weeks?

1. Yes

2. No (If No, skip to Question # 5.A3)

|____|

5.A3

If yes to question A2; what type of sickness (es) did the child suffer from during the past 2 weeks (Multiple responses possible)?

1. Diarrhea

2. Vomiting

|____|

|____|

|____|


3. Fever with chills like malaria

4. Fever, cough, difficulty in breathing

5. Other (specify)__________

|____|

5.A4

When the child was sick did you seek assistance?

1. Yes

2. No (If No, skip to question # 5.A5)

|____|

5.A5

If the response is yes to question # A4 where did you seek assistance? (More than one response possible- (Use 1 if Yes and 2 if No)

1. Traditional healer

2. Community health worker

3. Private clinic/ pharmacy

4. Shop/kiosk

5. Public clinic

6. Mobile clinic

7. Relative or friend

8. Local herbs

9. NGO/FBO

|____|

|____|

|____|

|____|

5.A6

If child had diarrhea, was he/she given any of the following to drink at any time since he/she started having the diarrhea? (USE 1 if Yes and 2 if No)

1. A fluid made from a special packet called Oralite or ORS? 2. A home-made sugar-salt solution? 3. Another home-made liquid such as porridge, soup, yoghurt, coconut water,

fresh fruit juice, tea, milk, or rice water? 4. Zinc 5. Others (specify)__________________________

|____|

|____|

|____|

5.A7

In the last 24 hours did the child (ren) who is < 5 years and is not breastfeeding receive milk?

1. Yes

2. No

|____|

5.A8 Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 Child 4

Age

MUAC

SECTION 6 A – CROP PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY

6.A1. HAVE YOU BEEN ENGAGED IN CROP PRODUCTION SINCE 2011? 1. YES 2. NO

6.A2. IF YES, WHICH CROPS DO YOU GROW?

CROPS (circle all grown)

1. Acreage

2. Quantity harvested

3. Proportion for HH

4. Proportion

5. Estimate

6. Seed Sources 1)

7. Until when


per crop (2011)

(kgs 2010) consumption (kgs)

for market sales (kgs)

profit from sale of crops

Home saved, 2) Community, 3) Donations (NGO, relative, friends,

4) Others

will your stock feed your HH ( 1= Jan; 4. April; 9. Sept, Other

Maize

Sorghum

Rice

Millet

Beans

Pigeon peas

Groundnuts

Sim sim

Sunflower

Soybeans

Cassava

Sweet potatoes

Vegetables

Bananas

Specify others

SECTION 6 B - LAND ACCESS AND UTILIZATION

6.B1. HOW MUCH LAND DO YOU OWN (ACRES)?

6.B2. HOW MUCH LAND HAVE YOU OPENED FOR PLANTING THIS SEASON?

6.B3. WHAT REASONS DO YOU HAVE FOR NOT UTILIZING ALL LAND FOR CROP PRODUCTION?

1. Lack of oxen 4. Land used for grazing of animals

2. Lack of labour 5. Land needs rest

3. Lack of seeds 6. Others (Specify)……………………………………………..

6.B4. WHAT MAJOR CHALLENGES DO YOU FACE FOR INCREASING CROP PRODUCTION (PLEASE RANK)

CHALLENGES (FOR YEAR 2011) Rank (1 to 7) 1 = Most challenging; 7 Least Challenging

1.1 Access to quality seeds

1.2 Access to land

1.3 Limited labour (for land opening)

1.4 Access to inputs (fertilizers,


inputs)

1.5 Market access

1.6 Post harvest losses

1.7 Processing of products

1.8 Other (Specify)

SECTION 6 C - ANIMAL PRODUCTS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTION

MILK PRODUCTION

6.C1. How many milk cows does your household own? Cows

6.C2. On average, how many liters of milk does one cow produce daily? Liters

6.C3. How many liters of milk were consumed by members of your household in the past 24 h?

Liters

6.C4. How much of the milk and milk products produced each day is sold? Liters

6.C5. How else is the milk produced by your cow used (gift, payment etc)?

ANIMAL SALES

6.C6. PLEASE INDICATE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS SOLD BY YOUR HOUSEHOLD WITHIN THE PAST THREE MONTHS

1. Cows 3. Oxen 5. Poultry 7. Others (Specify)……………………………

2. Sheep 4. Camel 6. Goats

VETERINARY SERVICES

6.C7. Does your household have access to veterinary services? Yes / No

6.C8. Have your animals participated in a vaccination campaign? Yes / No

CHALLENGES

1. PLEASE RANK THE FOLLOWING CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF CONSTRAINT TO LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION:

CHALLENGES (FOR YEAR 2011) RANK (1 TO 7)

1 = MOST CHALLENGING / 7 = LEAST CHALLENGING

6.C9 Access to Veterinary services

6.C10 Access to grazing land

6.C11 Access to water points (for animals)

6.C12 Insecurity

6.C13 Market access

6.C14 Pasture access

6.C15 Water access

6.C16 Processing products


6.C17 Other specify

6.C18 Do you migrate to access water or pasture?

6.C19 When do you migrate to access water or pasture?

6.C20 Where do you migrate to access water or pasture?

SECTION 7 A – CREDIT

7.A1Have you accessed credit from January to date

1 = Yes 2. No

(If No in 7.A1, skip to 8.A1-section 8A)

7.A2 If yes in 5.1, type of credit accessed

1. Cash 2. Food 3. Use of animals/mechanical traction 4. Agro/Livestock inputs 5. Household commodities 6. Medicine (human) 7. Labor 8. Other (Specify)…………………………

7.A3 Credit score 7.A4 Bank name

7.A5 Purpose of credit 7. A6 Distance to credit provider (bank)

7.A7 Bank a) KCB b) National Bank c) Standard Chartered d) Barclays bank e) Equity bank

f) Other (Specify)………………………………..

1. Purchase of food items 2. Health care 3. Household assets and

home improvement 4. Payment of education

expenses 5. Purchase of household

items 6. Business expansion or

start-up 7. Agriculture/livestock

investments 8. Social function and

obligation 9. Paying debt 10. Other (specify)

1) Below 1 km 2) 1 – 5 km 3) 5 – 10 km 4) 10 - 20 km 5) Above 20 km

7. A8 Micro-finance institution

a) KWF (Kenya Women Trust)

b) Faulu Kenya c) Opportunity

International

1) Below 1 km 2) 1 – 5 km 3) 5 – 10 km 4) 10 - 20 km 5) Above 20 km

7.A9 Money lender

7.A10 Spouse/relative

7.A11 Neighbor/friend

7. A12 Other (Specify):

SECTION 8 A – SOCIAL NETWORKS

8.A1 Do you belong to any community group or association? 1 = Yes 2 = No

(If No in 8.A1, skip to 9.A1 – section 9A)

A2 What does the community group or association you belong to do?

8.A2 Credit and saving


8.A3 Marketing association

8.A4 Labor sharing

8.A5 Group involved in income generating activity

8.A6 Guidance and counseling

8.A7 Other (Specify)

SECTION 9 A – ACCESS TO SOCIAL ECONOMICS

Grade household level of access, distance and means of access to the following social-economic services using codes below?

Codes (Level of access)

1. Access 3. Access with great difficulty 2. Access with some difficulty 4. No access

Infrastructure 9.A1 Level of access

9. A2 Distance

9. A3 Means of access

1. Walking 2. Cycling 3. Driving

4. Other (Specify)……………………….

9.A4 Nearest trading centre/market

9.A5 Nearest health unit (health centre)

9.A6 Nearest School

9.A7 Nearest water point

9.A8 How much water does your HH consume/day (liters/day)

SECTION 10 A – MONEY TRANSFER SERVICES

10.A1 Do you use mobile money transfer services? 1 = Yes 2 = No

(If no stop)

10.A2. What money transfer services to you use? a). Safaricom Mpesa b) Airtel mobile money

c). Western Money transfer d) Moneygram e). Other (Specify)………………………………………………………………

10.A3. How often do you use the mobile money transfer service?

a) Everyday b) Twice a week c) Three times a week d) Other (Specify)………………………………………………………………

10.A4. Who do you get the transfer from? a) Children b) Relative (Specify) b) Other (Specify)

10.A5. Where do you get the transfer from? a) Kenya (Specify town) b) East Africa (Specify country) c) Other (Specify country)

10.A6 Distance travelled to mobile money transfer service provider?

1) Below 1 km 2). 1 – 5 km 3). 5 - 10 km 4). 10 - 20 km

5). Above 20 km


Annex 7: Focus group discussion questionnaire FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION FOOD SECURITY ASSESSMENT TOOL – HOST COMMUNITY

Questionnaire Serial Number:

IDENTIFICATION

Name of Enumerator:

Date of Interview:

Geographic data

District Location

Division Village

1. General

a) Name of the group:

b) Number of participants in group:

c) Names of participants:

2. Water

a) Where do you get your daily water from? – How far? What kind of water?

b) Where does your livestock get water from? – How far? What kind of water?

c) How much do you pay for water or is it free?

d) Have you seen changes in access to water? Explain? – and what are the most important changes that you have experienced in terms of access to water?

e) Are you experiencing conflicts over access to water? – with whom?

f) Who decides on access to water in this settlement/community?

g) Apart from people of this settlement/community, who has access to water?

3. Schools

a) What changes have you experienced with the schools and education system the last 10 years? – has access changed for you (km to school now as compared to earlier)?

b) What is the main reason for sending children to school? (boys and girls)

c) How many of your girls are attending school? And how and why has this changed?


d) How old is the school and who supported the school construction? – and what were your efforts?

4. Health

a) What changes have you experienced with the health system the last 10 years? – and how has access in practice changed for you and your household?

b) Who supported the health facility construction? – and what were your efforts?

c) Do you prefer paying for your health services?

5. Transport

a) Are you sometimes using transport?

b) What means of transport? – and to where?

c) What has changed in your personal use of transport during the last decade?

6. Employment

What is the main occupation of people in the community

What time of the year

Skills needed Payment terms

a) Livestock herding

b) Farmer/own farm labour

c) Employed (salaried)

d) Daily labour/Wage labour

e) Small business/Petty trade

f) Other (Specify)

7. Firewood

a) How do you cook in your HH?

b) What stove do you use to cook?

c) Do you need firewood to cook?

d) Where do you get your firewood from? – how far?

e) What changes have you experienced in getting firewood?

f) Are people in this community selling firewood? To whom? At what price?

g) Do you sell firewood?


8. Trees

a) Do you use trees in your HH

b) What products to you get from trees?

c) Do you practice agro forestry in your area

d) Have anyone in the community planted trees?

e) Have you?

f) What impacts? Why?

g) Has the composition of trees changed in the area? How?

h) Has the vegetation cover changed? How?

i) Do people use trees materials for fencing? If so what impact does fencing material collection have on your area?

9. Alternative energy

a) Any experience with solar or wind energy in this community? Explain?

10. Trade and production

a) Where do you shop?

b) What are you buying?

c) What products are you selling? And where?

d) How often are you or somebody from the household selling livestock? And what market?

e) How often are you or another person from your household selling milk and milk products, such as cheese, butter and meat? And to what market?

f) Has men and women roles changed in the production, If so, how?

g) How to compare last year and this year in terms of trade (buying/selling products)

2011

2012

11. Division of labour in your household (male/female)

a) Who sells milk, associated dairy and animal products?

b) Who sells livestock?

c) Who is herding livestock?

d) Who waters livestock?


e) Who collects firewood?

f) Who collects grass, fodder?

g) Who fetches water?

h) Has anything changed in terms of division of labour during the last decade? If so what has changed?

i) Are you employed by other households? – If so to what extent?

j) Are you employing others? – If so to what extent??

12. Livelihood and food

a) How do you mainly get your food?

b) How do you mainly get your money?

c) Do you get remittances from outside family or friends? – If so, from where? And how regular?

d) Who decides on use of household income?

e) What is the most important activity that you live from?

f) When during the year do you feel that you have enough food?

g) Have you changed your consumption of food? How?

h) What do you consider your main occupation?

13. Livestock

a) What is the average livestock ownership in the community?

b) What general changes have you experienced in livestock ownership? - change in numbers and composition?

c) What is the most important factor impacting your livestock production?

d) Who is looking after livestock in the community?

14. Grazing and foraging

a) Where do you graze your animals during wet season? – How?

b) During dry season? – How far?

c) Any significant changes in availability of grazing and forage? – Why?

d) Have you seen major changes in composition of grasses?

e) When it rains, how is the grassing after that? Has that changed?

f) Are there areas in this community that are reserved for grazing during the


dry season? And for milking heard? Have there been changes?

g) Are anybody in the community or from outside having private areas (fenced) for grazing or grass production

h) Are anybody in the community getting grazing fees from others using grazing here? Who? How much? What impact does this have on you?

i) Is there competition for grazing and forage? How has it changed and why?

15. Farming

a) Do you have any experience in farming? Positive or negative? Explain

16. Experience with development projects

a) Are any NGO or government projects being implemented in the area?

b) If so, how well they are addressing community needs?

c) Are you currently/been participating in any of the programs?

d) What development projects have you experienced in your community, with what agencies? – what results?

e) How have you been involved in implementing the development projects?

f) Have you been involved in expressing your needs for support? How, to whom? Together with whom?

g) What changes in local organization have you experienced by dealing with development projects and development actors?

h) In what ways should the agencies work with you and with what kind of support?

17. For those not in centre

a) Where do you live?

b) What should happen before community members stop migrating /settle?

c) Where and how did you move before as compared to now?

18. Leadership and Government

a) How does the community make decisions?

b) Is there a local decision making structure?

c) How does the structure interact with the community?

d) What decisions are taken by the men and by the women in the household?

e) What government agencies are having activities in the area?


19. Development opportunities/Challenges

a) What kind of livelihood do you think will be the most important in the future in this area?

b) What will your children grow up to do in future?

c)

20. Insecurity

a) What kind of security are women facing when moving around away from settlements?

b) Are you yourselves experienced an incidences of insecurity? Where? How? What kind?

c) Has it changed? Explain?

d) Are there differences in insecurity incidences for settled and nomadic populations?

21 SEASONAL CALENDAR

Activities Months

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

Rainfall

Main crop grown for consumption

Main crop grown for sale

Livestock:

Migration

Milk production

Livestock sales

Heat and births

Employment

Local labour

Off-farm employment

Labor migration

Wild foods/game

Collection and consumption by type

Food purchases:

Timing of purchases and price

Annual hunger season

Timing

Harvesting


Annual cultural events:

Weddings

Memorials

House repairs

Highest incidences of disease

22. SECTION – WEALTH RANKINGS

Wealth group Poor Middle Better-off

a) Petty traders – stock (amount)

b) Livestock – size herds

c) Shops

d) Remittances (amount)

e) Other (Specify)

f) How do consider yourselves compared to the other people in the community? Rich, Average, Poor, Destitute

23. Links with refugees

a) Have you had any interaction with refugees? What kind?

b) Are there links in terms of clans, family and friends with the refugee population

c) What similarities do you see between you and the refugees? – what differences? – what does it mean for your daily lives?

d) Are there major differences among the different refugees and what they do? And what impact do the differences have?

e) Do you know of ways to negotiate deals with deals refugee population? Explain?

f) Have you experienced changes in how your own community function as a result of the refugee presence?

g) What do you think is important in the future for the relationship between you and the refugees?

24. Registration

a) Are there any people in the village that has come from Somalia? – Explain?

b) Have any refugees settled in the village or nearby areas outside refugee camps?


c) Do you know someone that are or have been registered as refugees? Who, why?

d) Do you know someone that are or have been registered as a refugee? Who, why?

e) What about people from other parts of Northeast Kenya? – have they registered as refugees?

f) What has been the impact on this?


Annex 8: Actors in the host community

Partner Region Settlement Sector Activity

ADEO

Dadaab

Host Community

HIV/AIDS

Access to: HIV testing and counseling in and out of schools; Quality adult Care, Treatment and Support and Quality Pediatric Care, Treatment and Support; Access to quality mother to child transmission services; Promotion of HIV prevention

ADEO Dadaab Host Community Youth participation and mobilization

Peace building b/w refugee youth community and host community

FAIDA Dadaab Host Community Environment Implementation of community sensitization campaigns; Provision of host community access to key services; Reforestation and development projects in Fafi district

FAIDA Dadaab Host Community Environment

GIZ Dadaab Host Community Environment Awareness campaign on environment and water management for host communities

Environmental education GIZ Dadaab Host Community

Youth participation and mobilization

KRCS Dadaab Dadaab & Fafi Host community

Construction of classrooms in the host community schools; Construction of Maternity Ward 18 Bed at Alinjugur Dispensary; Construction of 9 Teachers' houses (Fafi Centre Primary School);Construction of 60 bed Dormitory in Kulan Primary School; Construction of administration block in Kiwanja Ndege Primary School

NRC Dadaab Host Community Youth participation and mobilization

Youth Education Pack Programme

RRDO Dadaab Host Community Community Services Development of project benefitting host and displaced communities

SCUK Dadaab Host Community Youth participation and mobilization

Recreational activities

dadaab and fafi districts host community assessment · dadaab and fafi, specifically, the host...

Documents