Highlights. Recommendations. Methodology

Transcription

1 Food and Nutrition Security Bulletin - Issue 2 (August October 2009) East Java Province Indonesia Food and Nutrition Security Monitoring Syste (FNSMS) Jointly produced by: East Java Food Security Office Food Security Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture The United Nations World Food Prograe (WFP) The United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF) The International Labor Organization (ILO) Highlights In East Java province, the proportion of food insecure and vulnerable household slightly decreased fro 8% in the st round (Apr - Jul 09) to 4% in 2 nd round (Aug - Oct 09). The decrease was significant in rural area (fro % to 20%). This was likely due to the decreased expenditure on food, particularly cereals. No significant change was observed in urban area. In both areas, food security status was associated with structural factors such as ain source of incoe, education level, type of cooking fuel, and ownership of assets were found to be associated with food security. In urban area, external shocks such as increased coodity prices were likely to have ipacted household food security. This indicated that the situation is likely to be chronic in rural area, and a cobination of chronic and transitory in urban area. Food insecure households were found to be dependent on food purchase. In both areas, cereal production at household level was very liited likely due to sall land size. As a result, both farers and non-farers are dependent on food purchase. They are considered as highly vulnerable to price increases as well as incoe falls. However, existing foral supports were ainly to support short-ter needs of the households such as RASKIN and BLT, and interventions for livelihood support such as and incoe generation had a low level of coverage. Recoendations The future interventions aiing to iprove household food security should focus on structural causes of chronic food insecurity such as: incoe generation/diversification, agricultural intensification, and increasing ownership of asset. Targeting the food insecure: More food secure households owned a refrigerator, otorbike, and faring achinery than food insecure households. In rural area, all households using LPG or kerosene for cooking fuel were food secure. These ight be appropriate for targeting criteria for interventions. Since food insecure households are purchasing a high quantity of their foods, onitoring the prices of basic coodities as well as household expenditure patterns is iportant to provide early warning for the deterioration of household food security. Methodology Sapling: 250 households (urban: 25; rural:25) were randoly selected and interviewed using a pre-tested questionnaire. In the 2 nd round, 247 households (urban: 25; rural: 22) were interviewed. Collected data: household coposition, education, child labour, type of housing, water source, type of cooking fuel, food crops, ownership of land, livestock, assets, cash incoe sources, joblessness, igration, food access, food consuption (last 7 days), expenditures, difficulties, coping strategies and foral assistance. Food security indicators: Food access groups were deterined by atching the onthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) groups (poor, near-poor, non-poor) with onthly food expenditure groups (poor, average, good), Data on food eaten by household ebers in the last 7 days were used to define a food consuption score (FCS), a proxy of current household food security. The calculation and the rationale for the thresholds are presented in Annex. A coposite food security groups were deterined by atching the food consuption groups with and food access groups. This resulted in three final categories naely food insecure, vulnerable and food secure. Data entry and analyses: ANOVA and Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in household food security. For all analyses, a probability value of 0.05 was accepted as significant. SPSS 6.0 was used. All details of the ethodology are presented in Annex.

2 How any are food insecure and where are they? Food Access: Overall, based on the onthly food expenditure, the proportion of the household who spent less than provincial poverty line was increased in urban area and reduced in rural area during the 2 nd round. The increase in rural ight be related to the increased food price and/or expenditure for the festival season such as house repair and social events. Overall, no significant change was observed in the frequency of eal. However, in Bangkalan district, 80% of the young children were fed only 2 eals per day over the past 7 days. In urban area, no significant change in the share of food expensiture was observed. In rural area, the proportion of the household who spent ore than 65% of total expenditure on food decreased fro 74% to 70 % in the 2 nd round. Detailed analysis showed that rural household decreased expenditure on cereals fro 29% to 6%. This was likely because of the harvest of food crops. However, still 70% of rural households spent a large proportion of their onthly expenditure on food, particularly on cereals. Food security is a ulti-faceted concept as it is articulated in the definitions (Box and 2). Therefore, a single indicator cannot easure it. Results fro ultiple indicators should be triangulated to identify the food insecure and vulnerable. In the FNSMS, the level of household food security was also estiated through the cross-tabulations of the onthly per capita expenditure, the share of food expenditure and food consuption score. Box : Definition of food security (World Food Suit, 996) Food security exists when All people, at all ties, have physical and econoic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to eet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Box 2: Definition of food security (Governent of Indonesia, 996) Food Security is the fulfilent of food for every household, reflected fro the availability of food in sufficient quantity and quality, safe, evenly distributed and accessible by people. Food Consuption: The results of the food consuption score (FCS) indicate no significant change in the proportion of poor food consuption group between the st and 2 nd rounds. No case with poor FCS was found in both st and 2 nd rounds. Coposite food security group: The results of the coposite food security group indicate that the proportion of food insecure and vulnerable household increased slightly in urban area ( st round: 44%, 2 nd round: 48%), while it significantly reduced in rural area. This is likely due to the increased total expenditure and decreased share of food expenditure. Siilar to the st round, Sapang district had the highest percentage of food insecure and vulnerable households (2 nd round: 68%, st round: 68%), while the lowest percentage was observed in Suenep district (2 nd round: 8%, st round: 0%).

3 Who are the food insecure? To identify food insecure households, household food security was investigated according to different characteristics. Education: Overall, 4% (urban: 0%, rural: 7%) of household heads had never attended school or did not coplete priary school. In rural area, the proportion of food insecure and vulnerable household was clearly higher aong those household head who had never attended or did not coplete priary school (Figure 5). The association was not found in urban area. Siilar to the st MP, ore non agriculture unskilled and agricultural s were found in Sapang (46% and 2% respectively) and Probolinggo (8% and 2%). Expenditure pattern: Soe differences in expenditure pattern were found between food insecure and secure households. Food insecure and vulnerable spent a significantly larger share of their expenditure on cereals (food insecure: 24%, vulnerable: 7%) than food secure households (%). Food insecure households tend to spend ore share of their expenditure on sugar (4%), oil (5%) than food secure households (% and 2%, respectively). Food insecure households significantly increased the expenditure share on eat, egg and fish (2% to 9%) likely for celebrating holiday. Cooking fuel: In rural area, a higher proportion of food insecure and vulnerable households were found aong those using wood for ain cooking fuel. No food insecure and vulnerable household was observed aong those using kerosene and LPG or kerosene for cooking (Figure 8). In urban area, ost households were using kerosene and LPG for cooking fuel. Note: The data was not collected in the st round. Incoe source: Results showed a higher proportion of food insecure and vulnerable households aong those without a regular incoe source such as non-agriculture unskilled ers and agriculture ers. Meanwhile, significantly less vulnerable households were found aong those having regular and reliable incoe source such as self eployed and skilled labour (Figure 6). 85% of households whose ain incoe was the sale of own produced food crops were food secure. Assets: Most coon household assets owned by food insecure and vulnerable households were bicycle (76%), television (67%), faing achinery (50%) and otorbike

4 (48%). More food secure households owned faing achinery, otorbike and fridge. No significant change was observed between the st and 2 nd rounds. Food security was also associated with the nuber of owned assets. In rural area, food insecurity and vulnerable households had less assets. Meanwhile, ore vulnerable households were found aong those who owned ore assets (Figure 7). In rural area, ore food insecure and vulnerable households were found aong those without staple in stock. More than half of agricultural ers did not have stock at all on the day of the survey. The association was found between food security status and household staple production in both areas. A higher proportion of food insecure and vulnerable household was found aong those who do not produce staple food in urban area. Meanwhile, ore vulnerable households were found aong those who produced staple food in rural area (Figure 8). In urban area, a large proportion of non-farers such as non-agricultural er, sall business owner and petty traders also produced staples for their consuption and/or secondary incoe source. In rural area, ost households produced staples regardless of their priary incoe source. However, ore households were engaged in staple production as a priary incoe source. The average size of the owned land was very sall aong all incoe source groups (Figure 9). Transient or chronic: In urban area, ore than half of household experienced difficulty to buy foods or to cover other essential expenditures during the past 0 days. The association with food security was also found in urban area. Meanwhile, 27% of household experienced such shocks in rural area, and the association with food security was not significant. This indicates that the food insecurity is chronic in rural area, while it is likely a cobination of both chronic and transient in urban area. In suary, structural factors such as ain source of incoe, education level, type of cooking fuel, and ownership of assets were found to be associated with food security. In urban area, in external shocks such as increased coodity prices were likely to have ipacted household food security. However, it appears that household food security do not vary according to the gender and age of household head, household size, child absenteeis, child labour, water source, uneployent and igration.

5 Based on the above results, the situation is likely to be chronic in rural area, and a cobination of chronic and transitory in urban area. Food insecure households were found to be dependent on food purchase. In both areas, cereal production at household level was very liited likely due to sall land size. As a result, both farers and non-farers are dependent on food purchase. They are considered as highly vulnerable to price increases as well as incoe falls. However, existing foral supports were ainly to support short-ter needs of the households such as RASKIN and BLT, and interventions for livelihood support such as and incoe generation had a low level of coverage. How are they coping? Experienced difficulties: The ost frequently answered difficulties faced between July-October were related to cash availability and price increase (Annex 2). A few percentage of households entioned production constraints such as natural disasters and crop pest as difficulties. No significant change fro st round was observed. High coodity prices: No significant differences are found between urban and rural area in all ites, except cooking oil (higher in rural area). It is known that the provincial prices are closely linked with national prices which arked significant increase since early This explains frequently entioned high coodity prices as a ain difficulty. Moreover, the increased coodity prices deteriorate food accessibility not only in urban areas, but also in rural areas where food insecure households are dependent on arket for their foods. Foral assistance: During August - October 2009, the subsidized rice for the poor progra (RASKIN) and unconditional cash transfer progra (BLT) were two ajor assistance progras. There were no or negligible livelihood support progras and nutrition progras in all areas. Overall, Raskin progra assisted 54% of the surveyed households (2% in urban, 57% in rural) which increased fro 44% in the st round. However, no significant change in the proportion of food security of the recipients was observed fro the st round. 4% of non-recipients were not recipients in urban area, and ore than half of the recipients were food secure households in rural area. Coping strategies: Coping strategies are used by people to ake use of their own capacities to offset the threads to their food security. The households ostly adopted long-ter livelihood strategies which were at nondepleted level to acquire food rather than short-ter strategies such as alternation of consuption patterns. Coonly adopted coping strategies were seeking alternative or additional jobs (46%), extending working hours (7%), and reduce snack (29%). No significant difference was observed between urban and rural households and st and 2 nd rounds. Again, ain coping strategies of the households were to increase the access to cash incoe. Who is struggling the ost? : To identify the households who were struggling the ost, the Reduced Coping Strategy Index (RCSI) was calculated. The average RSCI in the 2 nd round increased to (urban: 9, rural: 7) fro 9 (urban: 8, rural: ) in the st round. As it was observed in the st round, agricultural er and seller of own products were likely struggling the ost (Figure 0). Siilar pattern was found in unconditional cash transfer progra (BLT). BLT assisted 2% in the 2 nd round and it was higher in rural (4%) than urban (2%). In rural area, the progra assisted ore food insecure and vulnerable households (29%) than food secure (7%).

6 Is the situation likely to change in the coing onths? Since the ain causes of food insecurity in East Java are ore related to underlying livelihood factors rather than natural shocks, the proble will persist for an extended period of tie. Therefore, significant iproveent is not expected in short-ter. However, huan-induced shocks such as coodity price increase and financial crisis will considerably affect the vulnerable and food insecure who are dependent on cash for their food access. Therefore, in addition to the sudden-onset disasters (such as earthquake) the following three factors are considered as risk factors in the coing onths. Price increase: Coodity prices, particularly sugar and kerosene, are still upward trend at national level. The price of rice is also volatile fro early 200 due to the delayed planting in ain production areas. Since food insecure households spend a large portion of their expenditure for sugar, sudden and significant increase of sugar price ay deteriorate their food access. Crop failure: Crop failure due to the natural disasters such as flood, drought and pest will be a risk factor for subsistent farers in rural area whose own production is constrained by sall land and econoic access to food is liited. BLT: The unconditional cash transfer progra which provided poor households with Rp 700,000 per year will be discontinued. This ay affect the food access of the recipients particularly of those who have liited cash incoe. Recoendations The future interventions aiing to iprove household food security should focus on structural causes of chronic food insecurity such as incoe generation, agricultural intensification and asset creation. Incoe generation/diversification: Efforts should be ade to provide or iprove household incoe, whilst at the sae tie to encourage diversification into activities with higher and ore stable incoes, through introduction of rural financial schees and training in enterprise developent. Agricultural intensification: A id and long-ter support to iprove the productivity of subsistent farers in rural area will be one of the key strategies to enhance their access to staple food and resilience to high food price. Targeting the food insecure: More food secure households owned a refrigerator, otorbike, and faring achinery than food insecure households. In rural area, all households using LPG or kerosene for cooking fuel were food secure. These ight be appropriate for targeting criteria for interventions. Monitoring coodity prices: Since food insecure households are dependent on arket for their foods, onitoring the prices of basic coodities as well as household expenditure patterns are iportant to provide early warning for the deterioration of household food security. Early warning for natural disasters: In order to iprove the resilience of the rural faring households to natural disasters, it is iportant to provide the with early warning of frequent natural disaster floods and droughts based on cliate prediction. Next onitoring period The rd round will be Noveber 2009 January 200. The bulletin will be released in April 200.

7 ANNEX Methodology of Household Food Security Analysis Household food security in this FNSMS Bulletin is analyzed using ethodology which is highlighted in the second edition of Eergency Food Security Assessent (EFSA) Handbook (WFP, January 2009). The analysis is based on the Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual Fraework which considers food availability, food access and utilization as core deterinants of food security and link these to households livelihood strategies and assets. Because the FNSMS ais to assess food security at household level, the analysis is focused on food access (Monthly Per Capita Expenditure, Share of Food Expenditure), food utilization (Food Consuption Score) and coping strategies (Reduced Coping Strategy Index). Other shockrelated indicators of transitory food insecurity were also analyzed (experienced difficulties/probles, absenteeis of school age children, child labor, joblessness, in and out igration). Fro the above, the analysis can answer five key questions of food security and vulnerability: How any households are food insecure? Where are the food insecure? Who are the food insecure? Why are they food insecure? And How are they coping?. Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE) The households are asked about their onthly expenditure (including cash, credit, own production) spent on food and non food ites during the last calendar onth before the survey to approxiate their incoe. The onthly per capita expenditure is calculated, and then households are categorized into three groups (poor, near poor, non poor) based on the latest provincial poverty line (BPS 2008), and the World Bank s threshold for the near poor at US$2 PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) which is converted into IDR using the 2008 national PPP exchange rate. The thresholds in IDR are as follows: Poor: less than IDR 26,746 for rural NTT, 99,006 for urban NTT less than IDR 50,968 for rural, IDR 79,26 for urban of West Kaliantan less than IDR 55,42 for rural, IDR 8,408 for urban of East Java less than IDR 60,527 for rural, IDR 96,229 for urban Central Sulawesi Near poor: between the above regional poverty line and US2 PPP or IDR,846 for all provinces Non poor: ore than IDR,846 for all provinces 2. Share of Food Expenditure The share of food expenditure of total expenditure is a proxy indicator of household food security. The higher the share of food expenditure, the greater the likelihood that a household has poor food access. The coonly used threshold for the share of food expenditure are used to classify households into poor, average and good food expenditure groups: Poor: food expenditure is ore than 65% of total household expenditure Average: food expenditure is at 50 65% of total household expenditure Good: food expenditure is less than 50% of total household expenditure. Food Consuption Score (FSC) The FCS is considered as an adequate proxy indicator of current food security because the FCS captures several eleents of food access and food utilization (consuption). Household food consuption is calculated using a proxy indicator the Food Consuption Score (FCS). FCS is a coposite score based on dietary frequency, food frequency and relative nutrition iportance of different food groups. Dietary diversity is the nuber of individual foods or food groups consued over the past seven days. Food frequency is the nuber of days (in the past 7 days) that a specific food ite has been consued by a household. Household food consuption is the consuption pattern (frequency * diversity) of households over the past seven days. Calculation of FCS and household food consuption groups. Using standard 7 day food frequency data, group all the food ites into specific food groups. 2. Su all the consuption frequencies of food ites of the sae group, and recode the value of each group above 7 as 7.. Multiply the value obtained for each food group by its weight and create new weighted food group scores. 4. Su the weighed food group scores, thus, creating the food consuption score (FCS). The ost diversified and best consuption with axial FCS at 2 eans that all food groups are eaten 7 days a week. 5. Using the appropriate thresholds, recode the variable food consuption score, fro a continuous variable to a categorical variable, to calculate the percentage of households of poor, borderline and acceptable food consuption.

8 Food Ites, Food Group and Weight (FNSMS, Indonesia, 2008) No FOOD ITEMS Food groups Weight Maize, aize porridge, rice, sorghu, illet pasta, bread and other cereals 2 Cassava, potatoes and sweet potatoes Cereals and tuber 2 Beans. Peas, groundnuts and cashew nuts Pulses 4 Vegetables and leaves Vegetables 5 Fruits Fruit 6 Beef, goat, poultry, pork, eggs and fish Meat and fish 4 7 Milk yogurt and other diary Milk 4 8 Sugar and sugar products Sugar Oils, fats and butter Oil Condients Condients 0 Food Consuption Score thresholds The following thresholds of FSC are used to categorize households into three food consuption groups based on the knowledge of consuption behaviors of the ajority of Indonesian at present, which are: Food consuption groups Food Consuption Score Description Poor 0 28 An expected consuption of staple 7 days, vegetables 5 6 days, sugar 4 days, oil/fat day a week, while anial proteins are totally absent Borderline An expected consuption of staple 7 days, vegetables 6 7 days, sugar 4 days, oil/fat days, eat/fish/egg/pulses 2 days a week, while dairy products are totally absent Acceptable > 42 As defined for the borderline group with ore nuber of days a week eating eat, fish, egg, oil, and copleented by other foods such as pulses, fruits, ilk 4. Reduced Coping Strategy Index (RCSI) When livelihoods are negatively affected by a shock /crisis, households ay adopt various echaniss (strategies) which are not adopted in a noral day to day life, to cope with reduced or declining access to food. Coping Strategy Index (CSI) is often used as a proxy indicator of household food insecurity. CSI is based on a list of behaviors (coping strategies). CSI cobines: (i) the frequency of each strategy (how any ties each strategy was adopted?); and (ii) their (severity) (how serious is each strategy?) for households reporting food consuption probles. Higher CSI indicates a worse food security situation and vice versa. CSI is a particularly powerful tool for onitoring the sae households or population over tie. There are two types: full CSI and reduced CSI. In this FSNMS, RCSI is used. RCSI is based on the sae short list of 5 coping strategies, and the sae severity weights. It is very useful for coparing across regions and countries, or across incoe/livelihood groups, because it focuses on the sae set of behaviors. The axial RSCI is 240 during the past 0 days (i.e. all 5 strategies are applied every day). There are no universal thresholds for RCSI.

9 Table below is an exaple of RCSI of this analysis, with RCSI at 27. Coping Strategies Raw score Universal Severity Weight Weighted Score = Frequency x Weight. Eating less preferred /expensive foods Borrowing food or relying on help fro friends and relatives Liiting portion size at ealtie Liiting adult intake in order for sall children to eat Reducing the nuber of eals per day 5 5 Total Household Score Reduced CSI Su down the total for each individual strategy Estiation of proportion of food insecure households based on coposite food security (How any?) The level of household food security is calculated through two cross tabulations of the above three indicators. Firstly, onthly per capita expenditure groups (poor, near poor, non poor) are cross tabulated with food expenditure groups (poor, average, good) to identify three food access groups (poor, average, good). Table below is an exaple of the first cross tabulation. Poor food access households (5%, in red cells) are those having either poor or near poor onthly per capita expenditure cobined with either poor or average food expenditure. Monthly per capita expenditure Food expenditure Poor Near poor Non poor Poor (>65% of total expenditure) 2% % % Average (50 65% total expenditure) 6% 4% % Good (<50% of total expenditure) 4% 6% 4% Note: Red = Poor food access, Yellow = Average food access, Green = Good food access Secondly, food consuption groups and food access groups derived fro the first cross tabulation are atched to identify three coposite food security groups (food insecure, vulnerable and food secure). Table below is an exaple of the second cross tabulation. Food insecure households (29%, in red cells) are those having either poor or average food access cobined with either poor or borderline food consuption. Food access Food consuption Poor Average Good Poor (0 28 scores) 9% 6% 0% Borderline ( scores) 4% 8% % Acceptable (> 42 scores) 27% 26% 9% Note: Red = Food insecure, Yellow = Vulnerable, Green = Food secure 6. Deterination of characteristics of food insecure households Identified food insecure households are atched with their livelihood characteristics such as location, sex, age and education of household head, household size, age dependency ratio, ain cash incoe source, housing, water and sanitation, land and livestock ownership, assets, coping strategies, child education and labor, uneployent, igration, etc. to answer other four questions: Where, Who, Why they are

10 food insecure, and How they are coping. These analyses allow for deterining whether food insecurity is chronic (long ter, persistent) caused by underlying structural and contextual factors which do not change quickly (local cliate, soil type, local governance syste, public infrastructure roads, irrigation, land tenure, etc.), or transitory (short ter, transient) ostly caused by dynaic factors which can change quickly (natural disasters, displaceent, diseases, igration, soaring food prices).

11 * = difference between urban and rural is significant(p<0.05) ANNEX 2. Main socio-econoic characteristics of surveyed households Area: All 4 provinces East Java Nusa Tenggara Tiur West Kaliantan Central Sulawesi Period: st MP (Jun-Jul 09) 2 nd MP (Oct-Nov 09) rd MP (Jan-Feb 0) 4 th MP (Mar-Apr 0) Characteristics st MP (May - Jul) Urban Rural All 2 nd MP st MP 2 nd MP st MP (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) 2 nd MP (Aug - Oct). Gender of household head (%) Male Feale Age of household head (ean) Education level of household head (%) * No school, incopleted priary school Priary or junior high school copleted High school or university copleted Household size (ean) Household having under 5 children (%) Average nuber (person) 6. Household having at least school aged child (%) Ratio of dependants (= dependants / non-dependants) Households having a child absent fro school last onth (%) Due to child labour Child labour: working hours 0-4 hours/day Child labour: Working hours >4 hours/day Child labour: Engaged in household chore Child labour: Supporting faility business Child labour: Working in inforal sectors Housing conditions (%) * Non-durable (wood, herb) Sei peranent (ground part: durable, upper part: non-durable) Durable (brick, ceent) Type of dwelling (%) Individual house (separated fro neighbour) Flat in ulti-storey building Roo(s) in a shared house or shared flat Access to water sources (%) * Iproved Uniproved Distance to the ain source of drinking water (%) less than 0 inutes to 60 inutes 2 2 ore than 60 inutes 0 2. Cooking fuel (%) * Wood Others (kerosene, LPG, biogas, electricity) Type of latrine (%) * Flush latrine/toilet with water Traditional pit latrine (no water) None/bush (go to forest, river, lake, da, beach etc) Ownership of land (%) * Households do not own land Households own land Average owned land size (ha, aong those who own land) Owned land size (%, aong those who own land) Households own the land sized less than 0.5 ha Households own the land sized ore than 0.5 ha Rental of land (%) Households do not rent land Households rent land Investent of land (%) Households do not invest land Households invest land Mortgage of land (%) Households do not ortgage out land Households ortgage land Staple food production in a noral year (%) * Households do not produce staple food in a noral year Households produce staple food in a noral year Average production of staple food in a noral year (kg, aong those who produce staple food in a noral year) Level of the staple requireent et by own production in a noral year (%, aong those who produce staple) * HH Production eets less than onths requireent HH Production eets fro to 7 onths requireent HH Production eets ore than 7 onths requireent

12 Characteristics st MP (May - Jul) Urban Rural All 2 nd MP st MP 2 nd MP st MP (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) 2 nd MP (Aug - Oct) 24. Sale of cereals in a noral year * None Less than half About half More than half All Sale of tubers in a noral year None Less than half About half More than half All Staple food production in 2009 * Households do not produce staple food in a noral year Households produce staple food in a noral year Avg production of staple in 2009 (kg, aong those produced) Average production of staple food in 2009(%, et requireent, aong those who produce staple in 2009) HH Production eets less than onths requireent HH Production eets fro to 7 onths requireent HH Production eets ore than 7 onths requireent Level (%) of the 2009 staple requireent et by accuulated harvested crops (ean) Staple (cereals and tubers) in stock (%) * Households without staple in stock Households with staple in stock Average aount of staple in stock (kg, aong those who had staple in stock) Nuber of days which last current cereals in stock (aong those who had stock) Nuber of days which last current tubers in stock (aong those who had stock) Ownership of livestock (%) * Household without livestock Households own livestock Average nuber of livestock Nuber of owned assets (%) * None (0) Fro to More than Nuber of household ebers regularly earning incoe (%) None (0) person persons More than persons Nuber of incoe sources (%) * None (0) source sources More than persons Main incoe source ( predoinant)* st 2nd rd Nonagricultural unskilled Agricultural Governent eployee salary Nonagricultural unskilled Agricultural Governent eployee salary Sale of food crops production Agricultural Selfeployed of ediu scale Sale of food crops production Agricultural Sale of anials/ani al products/fish Sale of food crops production Nonagricultural unskilled wage labour Self-eployed of ediu scale Agricultural Nonagricultural unskilled 40. Households having uneployed ebers (%) Household having out-igrated ebers in Indonesia and abroad (%) * Nuber of eals per day (2-59 onths old children) (%) * None (0) eals per day eals per day More than eals per day Nuber of eals per day (5-49 years old) (%) None (0) eals per day eals per day 2 More than eals per day Sale of food crops production

13 Characteristics st MP (May - Jul) Urban Rural All 2 nd MP st MP 2 nd MP st MP (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) 2 nd MP (Aug - Oct) 44. Nuber of eals per day (other household ebers) (%) None (0) eals per day eals per day 2 More than eals per day Food consuption score - FCS (%) poor (0-28) borderline ( ) acceptable (>42.5) Monthly food expenditure (%) * poor (>65%) average (50-65%) good (<50%) Monthly per capita expenditure - MPCE (%) * poor (below poverty line) near poor (above poverty line, below US$2/day in PPP rate) non-poor Food security group (%) food insecure vulnerable food secrure Most frequently experienced difficulties in the past onths * st (No difficulty) (No difficulty) Liited cash Liited cash Liited cash Liited cash 2nd Liited cash Liited cash rd Increased costs for social events High food prices High food prices Agriculture/f ishing issues High food prices Increased costs for social events (No difficulty) High food prices High food prices (No difficulty) 50. Households experienced any shocks in the past 0days (%) Yes, experienced No, not experienced Most frequently applied coing strategies st 2nd rd Extend working hours (68.5%) Rely on less preferred/ex pensive food (46.%) Seek alternative/ additional jobs (42.6%) Extend working hours to gain incoe (52%) Reduce snacks (29%) Rely on less preferred and less expensive food (2%) Seek alternative/ additional jobs (78.5%) Reduce snacks (4.0%) Purchase food on credit (8.0%) Seek additional jobs (6%) Reduce snacks (28%) Purchase food on credit, incur debts (28%) Seek alternative/add itional jobs (6.9%) Extend working hours (42.9%) Reduce snacks (4.4%) Seek alternative or additional jobs (46%) Extend working hours to gain incoe (7%) Reduce snacks (29%) 52. Coping Strategy Index (ean) * Household assisted by RASKIN progra (%) * Household assisted by BLT progra (%) *

14 4 Provinces (All) 4 Provinces (Urban) 4 Provinces (Rural) Coodity Current price (IDR/kg, ltr, piece) Change in price (%) ANNEX Prices of basic coodities Average onthly change over Coodity Current price (IDR/kg, ltr, piece) Change in price (%) Average onthly change over Rice (RASKIN) 2,090 Rice (RASKIN),725 Rice (High quality) 6,79 Rice (High quality) 5,702 Rice (Mediu quality) 5,4 Rice (Mediu quality) 4,857 Rice (Low quality),559 Rice (Low quality),559 Maize 5,56 Maize,240 Noodle (Fortified),490 Noodle (Fortified),254 Noodle (Unfortified Noodle (Unfortified,28 ediu quality),57 ediu quality) Tepe,502 Tepe,207 Tofu,86 Tofu n.a. Egg 7,882 Egg 4,409 Cooking oil (Bioli),747 Cooking oil (Bioli) 2,60 Cooking oil (Local) 7,95 Cooking oil (Local),000 Sugar (Regular) 0,264 Sugar (Regular) 0,449 Sugar (Brown) 9,682 Sugar (Brown) 9,80 Kerosene,70 Kerosene,6 Coodity Current price (IDR/kg, lir, piece) Change in price (%) Average onthly change over East Java (All) Coodity Current price (IDR/kg, lir, piece) Change in price (%) Average onthly change over Rice (RASKIN),86 Rice (RASKIN) n.a. Rice (High quality) 6,49 Rice (High quality) 5,702 Rice (Mediu quality) 5,7 Rice (Mediu quality) 4,852 Rice (Low quality) 4,588 Rice (Low quality) 4,588 Maize 5,654 Maize,055 Noodle (Fortified),489 Noodle (Fortified),2 Noodle (Unfortified, Noodle (Unfortified,28 ediu quality) ediu quality) Tepe,79 Tepe,027 Tofu 86 Tofu Egg 7,95 Egg,904 Cooking oil (Bioli),698 Cooking oil (Bioli),009 Cooking oil (Local) 7,592 Cooking oil (Local) n.a. Sugar (Regular) 0,2 Sugar (Regular) 0,084 Sugar (Brown) 9,852 Sugar (Brown) 9,47 Kerosene,670 Kerosene 2,899 Coodity Current price (IDR/kg, lir, piece) Change in price (%) Average onthly change over East Java (Urban) Coodity Current price (IDR/kg, lir, piece) Change in price (%) Average onthly change over Rice (RASKIN) 2,60 Rice (RASKIN),725 Rice (High quality) 6,244 Rice (High quality) n.a. Rice (Mediu quality) 5,54 Rice (Mediu quality) 5,000 Rice (Low quality),48 Rice (Low quality),48 Maize 5,60 Maize,50 Noodle (Fortified),490 Noodle (Fortified),28 Noodle (Unfortified ediu quality),400 Noodle (Unfortified ediu quality) Tepe,676 Tepe,72 Tofu,642 Tofu n.a Egg 7,82 Egg 4,898 Cooking oil (Bioli),80 Cooking oil (Bioli),89 Cooking oil (Local) 6,922 Cooking oil (Local),000 Sugar (Regular) 0,297 Sugar (Regular) 0,684 Sugar (Brown) 9,50 Sugar (Brown) 8,442 Kerosene,790 Kerosene,428 East Java (Rural) n.a. Price increase aove noral price fluctuation Noral price fluctuation Price decrease below noral fluctuation Price fluctuation is considered noral if the change is within 5% for onth, or within 0% for onths or within 5% for one year.