Highlights. Recommendations. Methodology

Transcription

1 Food and Nutrition Security Bulletin - Issue 2 (August October 2009) Central Sulawesi Province Indonesia Food and Nutrition Security Monitoring Syste (FNSMS) Jointly produced by: Central Sulawesi Food Security Office Central Food Security Agency The United Nations World Food Prograe (WFP) The United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF) The International Labour Organization (ILO) Highlights In Central Sulawesi province, the proportion of food insecure and vulnerable household slightly decreased in rural area, while no significant change was observed in urban area (Figure 4). This was likely due to the increased onthly expenditure and decreased share of expenditure on food, as food consuption reained alost unchanged. In both areas, food security status was associated with structural factors such as education level of household head, ain incoe source, use of latrine, ownership of assets and type of cooking fuel. No association was found between experienced difficulties and household food security in both areas. This indicates that the food insecurity in Central Sulawesi is not transient but rather chronic. Nearly half of households who were engaged in agriculture produced less than one fourth of their annual requireent in 2009 (Annex 2). This indicates that ost farers are heavily dependent on food purchase. 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. Nearly half of the households using wood as a ain cooking fuel and those without latrine are found to be food insecure. These criteria will be appropriate targeting criteria for interventions. However, the nuber of owned household asset was not associated with food security. Since food insecure households are dependent on food purchase, 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, 248 households (urban: 25; rural: 2) 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 expenditure per capita, the proportion of the household who spent less than provincial poverty line was reduced in both areas during the 2 nd round (fro 25% to % in rural, fro 8% to % in urban). In the 2 nd round, ore than half of the are considered to be in the non-poor group. This ight be related to increased financial contribution to social events during the national holiday season. the st round). None of the households in Morowali district was in the poor group both in the st and 2 nd rounds. Overall, no significant change was observed in the frequency of eal. However, in Buol district, all young children were fed only 2 eals per day, 7% of woen of reproductive age received only 2 eals per day, and 45% of other household ebers received only 2 eals per day over the past 7 days. In rural area, less household were classified as poor share of expenditure on food (>65% of total expenditure) but the proportion is very high (70% of all households). The proportion reained alost unchanged in urban area. Detailed analysis on expenditure showed that households decreased the expenditure on cereals fro % in the st round to 9% in 2 nd round (Figure 2). This is likely due to harvest of 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 food insecure households between the st and 2 nd rounds (Figure ). However, the proportion of the households with a poor FCS was increased twice in Banggai Kepulauan district (6% in the 2 nd round, 8% in Coposite food security group: The results of the coposite food security group indicate that the proportion of food insecure and vulnerable household slightly decreased in rural area, while no significant change was observed in urban area (Figure 4). This was likely due to the increased onthly expenditure and

3 decreased share of expenditure on food, as food consuption reained alost unchanged. proportion of the food insecure aong agricultural wage labour and sale of own production (cash crops) significantly increased in the 2 nd round. Siilar to the st onitoring period, Banggai Kepulauan district had the highest percentage of food insecure households ( st round: 25%, 2 nd round: 20%), while the lowest percentage was observed in Morowali district (6% in both 2 nd and st rounds). Who are the food insecure? To identify food insecure households, household food security was investigated according to different characteristics. Education: Overall, 20% of household heads had never attended school or did not coplete priary school. In urban area, the proportion of food insecure households was clearly higher aong those households. In rural area, on the other hand, the proportion of food insecure was equally high aong those who never attended school or did not coplete priary school and copleted priary school or junior high school (Figure 5). Siilar to the st round, ore sale of cash crops and sale of anial/fish were found in Banggai Kepulauan (27%, 24% respectively) and Parigi Mountong (22%, 8%), and ore non-agriculture unskilled wage labour and sale cash crops were found in Donggala (0%, 2%) and Buol (22%, 8%) districts. Expenditure pattern: Soe differences in expenditure pattern were found between food insecure and secure households. Food insecure households spent a significantly larger share of their expenditure on cereals (27%) than food secure households (9%). Food insecure households tend also to spend ore on sugar (6%) than food secure households (2%). Food insecure households spend less on education and health (2%) than the food secure (4%). Both food secure and insecure household spend around 4% of their onthly expenditure on social events. Use of latrine: 6% of urban households did not have access to latrine and ore vulnerable households were found aong the. In rural area, 42% of household did not have access to latrine, but no significant difference in food security status was observed between the households using latrine and not using it (Figure 7). Note: The data was not collected in the st round. Incoe source: A higher proportion of food insecure and vulnerable households were found aong households depending on sell of own products (cash and food crops). Meanwhile, uch less food insecure households were found aong those having regular and reliable incoe source such as self-eployent and salary earners. The Note: The data was not collected in the st round

4 Assets: Faring achineries are ore coonly owned by food insecure households, while a refrigerator and otorbike were predoinantly owned by food secure households. No significant change in ownership of assets was observed between the st and 2 nd rounds. Nearly half of rural household owned less than 2 assets and ore food secure households were found aong the. However, household food security status did not significantly vary by the nuber of owned assets (Figure 8). Cooking fuel: More food insecure households were found aong those who were using wood as a ain cooking fuel (Figure 9). The ajority of households (70%) were using wood as cooking fuel, and 42% of households did not have a stove for cooking. No significant change was observed between the st and 2 nd Round. Crop production: No association was found between food security status and household crop production. Nearly half of households who were engaged in agriculture produced less than one fourth of their annual requireent in 2009 (Annex 2). This indicates that ost farers are heavily dependent on food purchase. Transient or chronic: In total, 5% of household experienced difficulty to buy foods or to cover other essential expenditures during the past 0 days. More urban households (58%) experienced than rural households (47%). However, no association was found between experienced difficulties and household food security in both tingaareas. This indicates that the food insecurity in Central Sulawesi is not transient but rather chronic. In suary, livelihoods and structural factors such as education level of household head, ain incoe source, use of latrine, ownership of assets and type of cooking fuel. 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, production of staple food, uneployent, igration, experienced shocks, and coping strategy index. Food insecure households were found to be dependent on food purchase. They are considered as highly vulnerable to price increases as well as incoe falls. Based on the above results, the situation is likely to be chronic, rather than transitory since food insecurity sees to be ostly associated to structural factors. 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 high health cost as difficulty. No significant change fro st round was observed. High coodity prices: The prices of coodities were investigated. No significant differences were found between urban and rural area in all ites, except tofu (higher in rural). It is known that the 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. 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 (24%), extending working hours (22%), and reduce snack (2%). No significant

5 difference was observed between urban and rural households. Fewer households seek additional jobs (28% in the st round) and ore extended working hours (% in the st round) copared to the st round. Again, ain coping strategies of the households ai to increase the access to cash. 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 was (urban: 7, rural: 7). No significant difference in RCSI aong ain incoe source group was observed in the 2 nd round. Soe groups such as sale of cash crops, governent eployee struggled ore than st round but overall score level reains sae. Sale cash crops rd2 Sale cash crops rd Non-agri skill wage labor rd2 Non-agri skill wage labor rd Gov't salary rd2 Gov't salary rd Sale of anials/fish rd2 Sale of anials/fish rd Agri wage labour rd2 Agri wage labour rd Non-agri unskill wage labour rd2 Non-agri unskill wage labour rd Sale food crops rd2 Sale food crops rd Figure 0: Reduced Coping Strategy Index (RCSI) by incoe source Rural rd 2 Rural rd Urban rd 2 Urban rd Total rd 2 Total rd 7 7 Foral assistance: During May July 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 26% of the households (urban: 8%, rural: 4%). No significant change in the percentage of assisted household was observed fro the st round. As it was observed in the st round, the progra assisted ore food insecure and vulnerable households than food secure. However, nearly half of the recipients were food secure. Only 7% (4% in urban, 20% in rural) of households received BLT progra in the 2 nd onitoring period and the proportion was significantly reduced fro the st period (6% in total, 2% in urban, 50% in rural) Is the situation likely to change in the coing onths? Since the ain causes of food insecurity in Central Sulawesi 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. 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/diversification, agriculture intensification and asset creation. Incoe generation/diversification: Food insecure and vulnerable households were found ore aong those who rely on unsustainable, unstable and low incoe source. Efforts should be ade to provide or iprove household incoe, whilst at the sae tie encouraging diversification into activities with higher and ore stable incoes, through introduction of rural financial schees, undertaking value chain analysis of key crops, training in enterprise developent, and arket infrastructure developent. Agriculture intensification: With 70% of households spending ore than 65% of onthly expenditure on food in rural area after harvesting season, it is clear that household productivity is very liited. Efforts to intensify the crop production at household level should be pursued through prooting agricultural extension service, iproved seed and so on. Asset creation: Food insecure households tend to have less access to assts for food utilization such as cooking stove and productive assets. Energy efficient stove (sart stove) will be an option for reducing those households workload to collect woods for fuel, iproving the housing condition and reducing the household expenditure and deforestation.

6 Targeting food insecure: A refrigerator and otorbike were predoinantly owned by food secure households. Faring achineries are ore coonly owned by food insecure households. Nearly half of the households using wood as a ain cooking fuel and those without latrine are found to be food insecure. These criteria will be appropriate 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 is iportant to provide early warning for the deterioration of household food security. Next onitoring period The rd onitoring period will be Noveber 2009 January 200. The bulletin will be released in March 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 shock related 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 nonfood 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. 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

9 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 2% % % expenditure) 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 (0-28 scores) Borderline ( scores) Acceptable (> 42 scores) Note: Red = Food insecure, Yellow = Vulnerable, Green = Food secure Poor Average Good 9% 6% 0% 4% 8% % 27% 26% 9% 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 food insecure, and How they are coping.

10 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 Area: ANNEX 2. Main socio-econoic characteristics of surveyed households 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) * = difference between urban and rural is significant (P<0.05) Urban Rural All Characteristics st Round 2 nd st Round Round 2 nd Round st Round 2 nd Round (May - (May - Jul) (Aug - Oct) (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) (Aug - Oct) Jul). Gender of household head Male Feale Age of household head (ean) Education level of household head No school, incoplete priary school Priary or junior high school copleted n.a. 55 n.a. 56 n.a. 56 High school or university copleted Household size (ean) Household having under 5 children Average nuber (person) 6. Household having at least school aged child Percentage of dependants Households having a child absent fro school last onth Due to child labour 0 Working hours 0-4 hours/day Working hours >4 hours/day Engaged in household chore Supporting faily business Working in inforal sectors Housing conditions (* st and 2nd) 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 (piped water, public tap, tube well/borehole, protected well, protected spring water, rain water) Uniproved (river, unprotected well/spring water, canal, bottled/refilled water supplied by factory/individual) 2. Distance to the ain source of drinking water * less than 0 inutes to 60 inutes n.a. 6 n.a. n.a. ore than 60 inutes Cooking fuel * Wood Others (kerosene, LPG, biogas, electricity) Type of latrine * Flush latrine/toilet with water Traditional pit latrine (no water) n.a. 47 n.a. 7 n.a 27 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 Households do not rent land Households rent land 2 9. Investent of land Households do not invest land Households invest land

12 Characteristics st Round (May - Jul) Urban Rural All 2 nd st Round Round 2 nd Round st Round (May - (Aug - Oct) (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) Jul) 2 nd Round (Aug - Oct) 8. Rental of land 20. 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) Level of the staple requireent et by own product in a noral year (aong those who produce) * HH Production eets less than onths requireent HH Production eets fro to 7 onths requireent HH Production eets ore than 7 onths requireent 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 Average production of staple food in 2009 (kg, aong those who produce staple food in 2009) 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 %, ± SD) * 0 0. 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 stock) * Nuber of days which last current cereals in stock (aong those who had staple in stock) Nuber of days which last current tubers in stock (aong those who had staple in 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 hh ebers regularly earning incoe None (0) person persons More than persons

13 Characteristics st Round (May - Jul) Urban Rural All 2 nd st Round Round 2 nd Round st Round (May - (Aug - Oct) (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) Jul) 2 nd Round (Aug - Oct) 8. Nuber of incoe sources None (0) source sources More than persons Main incoe source ( predoinant) * st 2nd rd Non-agri unskilled wage labour Sale of anial/fish Selfeploy of id scale Non-agri unskilled wage labour Sale of anial/fish Selfeploy of id scale Sale of own products (cash crop) Sale of own products (food crops) Gov t eployee Sale of own products (cash crop) Agricultural wage labour Nonagri unskill wage labour Non-agri unskilled wage labour Non-agri unskilled wage labour Sale of anial/fis h Sale of own products (cash crop) Non-agri unskilled wage labour Sale of anial/fis h 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 More than eals per day Nuber of eals per day (other household ebers) None (0) eals per day eals per day 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 Liited Liited No Liited Liited Liited cash cash difficulty cash cash cash 2nd High food No High food No No No price difficulty prices difficulty difficulty difficulty rd Health High food Health High food Health High food expend prices expend prices expend prices 50. Households experienced any shocks in the past 0days Yes, experienced No, not experienced

14 Characteristics 5. Most frequently applied coing strategies st 2nd rd st Round (May - Jul) Seek alternative /additional jobs Liit portion size at eals Restrict consuptio n by adults for sall children to eat Urban Rural All 2 nd st Round Round 2 nd Round st Round (May - (Aug - Oct) (Aug - Oct) (May - Jul) Jul) Extend working hours to gain incoe Seek alternative or additional jobs Reduce snacks Seek alternativ e/addition al jobs Reduce snacks Rely on less preferred/ expensive food Seek additional jobs Extend working hours Reduce snacks Seek alternative /additiona l jobs Reduce snacks Reduce nuber of eals eaten in a day 2 nd Round (Aug - Oct) Seek alternative or additional jobs Extend working hours to gain incoe 52. Coping Strategy Index (ean) Household assisted by RASKIN progra Household assisted by BLT progra Reduce snacks

15 4 Provinces (All) 4 Provinces (Urban) 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) n.a. Rice (High quality) 6,79 Rice (High quality) 6,62 Rice (Mediu quality) 5,4 Rice (Mediu quality) 5,57 Rice (Low quality),559 Rice (Low quality) n.a. Maize 5,56 Maize 2,926 Noodle (Fortified),490 Noodle (Fortified),54 Noodle (Unfortified ediu Noodle (Unfortified,57 quality) ediu quality),72 Tepe,502 Tepe,842 Tofu,86 Tofu,26 Egg 7,882 Egg 8,0 Cooking oil (Bioli),747 Cooking oil (Bioli) 9,928 Cooking oil (Local) 7,95 Cooking oil (Local) 7,025 Sugar (Regular) 0,264 Sugar (Regular) 9,859 Sugar (Brown) 9,682 Sugar (Brown) 0,000 Kerosene,70 Kerosene 4,208 Coodity Current price (IDR/kg, lir, piece) Change in price (%) Average onthly change over Central Sulawesi (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) 7,20 Rice (Mediu quality) 5,7 Rice (Mediu quality) 5,000 Rice (Low quality) 4,588 Rice (Low quality) n.a. Maize 5,654 Maize 2,8 Noodle (Fortified),489 Noodle (Fortified),568 Noodle (Unfortified ediu Noodle (Unfortified, quality) ediu quality),09 Tepe,79 Tepe,707 Tofu 86 Tofu,056 Egg 7,95 Egg 8,549 Cooking oil (Bioli),698 Cooking oil (Bioli) 9,552 Cooking oil (Local) 7,592 Cooking oil (Local) 7,462 Sugar (Regular) 0,2 Sugar (Regular) 0,247 Sugar (Brown) 9,852 Sugar (Brown) 0,000 Kerosene,670 Kerosene 4,2 Coodity Current price (IDR/kg, lir, piece) Change in price (%) Average onthly change over Central Sulawesi (Urban) Coodity Current price (IDR/kg, lir, piece) Change in price (%) Average onthly change over Rice (RASKIN) 2,60 Rice (RASKIN) n.a. Rice (High quality) 6,244 Rice (High quality) 6,96 Rice (Mediu quality) 5,54 Rice (Mediu quality) 5,000 Rice (Low quality),48 Rice (Low quality) n.a. Maize 5,60 Maize,052 Noodle (Fortified),490 Noodle (Fortified),49 Noodle (Unfortified ediu Noodle (Unfortified,400 quality) ediu quality),4 Tepe,676 Tepe,978 Tofu,642 Tofu,500 Egg 7,82 Egg 7,48 Cooking oil (Bioli),80 Cooking oil (Bioli) 2,000 Cooking oil (Local) 6,922 Cooking oil (Local) 6,729 Sugar (Regular) 0,297 Sugar (Regular) 9,42 Sugar (Brown) 9,50 Sugar (Brown) 0,000 Kerosene,790 Kerosene 4,06 Price increase ove 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. 4 Provinces (Rural) Central Sulawesi (Rural)