WFP-Libya Rapid Food Security Assessment Final

Rapid
Food Security Assessment, Libya

Report

November 2016

s

Table of Content
1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Key findings 4
2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3 Objectives and Methodology ............................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Objectives 7
3.2 Sampling and data collection process 7
3.3 Limitations 8
4 IDP Households Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 9
4.1 Demographics 9
4.2 Timing of displacement 9
4.3 Employment 10
5 Income and Expenditure ................................................................................................................. 11
5.1 Income source 11
5.2 Expenditures 14
6 External Assistance ......................................................................................................................... 18
7 Food Insecurity situation and trends .............................................................................................. 20
8 Food consumption .......................................................................................................................... 21
8.1 Food sources 25
9 Coping Strategies ............................................................................................................................ 27
9.1 Livelihood Coping Strategies 27
9.2 Consumption based coping 31
10 Profile of the food insecure ............................................................................................................ 32
10.1 Geography 32
10.2 Demography 34
10.3 Socio-economic situation 35
11 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 39
11.1 Recommendations 39
12 Annex 1 - CARI calculations ............................................................................................................. 40
13 Annex 2: CARI Consoles by location and region .............................................................................. 44
14 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 49

List of Figures and Tables
Map 1: Food Security across locations ......................................................................................................... 5
Map 2: Sample Distribution in Libya ............................................................................................................ 8

Figure 1: IDP Household Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Timing and main reason for displacement .................................................................................... 9
Figure 3: IDP Employment status ............................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Employed IDPs ............................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 5: Income sources and relative contribution to total household income ....................................... 12
Figure 6: Income situation .......................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7: Main income challenges across locations ................................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Average share of expenditure ..................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Average share of expenditure on food by regions and by locations ........................................... 15
Figure 10: Average share of expenditure on food by IDP Place of Origin and displacement time ............ 16
Figure 11: Expenditure development and income comparison ................................................................. 17
Figure 12: Food Aid, Assistance, and Non-food assistance ........................................................................ 19
Figure 13: Non-food support ...................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 14: Food Consumption Score .......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 15: Food Consumption Score by regions and location .................................................................... 22
Figure 16: Food Consumption Score by Displacement Groups, Sex of Head of Households and
Displacement time ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Page 2 of 49
Figure 17: Meals eaten per day by sex of head of households and average of number of days displaced 24
Figure 18: Food sources ............................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 19: Average use of key food sources across locations .................................................................... 26
Figure 20: Use of market (cash and credit) as food source 2015 vs. 2016 ................................................. 27
Figure 21: Livelihood coping strategies used by households ..................................................................... 28
Figure 22: Livelihood coping strategies ...................................................................................................... 28
Figure 23: Livelihood Coping Strategies by regions and locations ............................................................. 29
Figure 24: Livelihood coping strategies by displacement groups and displacement time ......................... 31
Figure 25: Consumption-based coping strategies across locations ............................................................ 31
Figure 26: Food security across regions and locations ............................................................................... 33
Figure 27: Food security across displacement groups ............................................................................... 34
Figure 28: Food security by Sex of head of household and Employment status ........................................ 34
Figure 29: Food security by displacement time ......................................................................................... 35
Figure 30: Households food security by main sources of income and use of consumption-based coping
strategies .................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 31: Cluster Analysis of Most Vulnerable IDP Groups ....................................................................... 38

Table 1: CARI Classification ........................................................................................................................ 20
Table 2: CARI definitions ............................................................................................................................ 21
Table 3: CARI Classification of IDP households .......................................................................................... 36
Table 4: CARI model ................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 5: Food items table from household survey ..................................................................................... 40
Table 6: Coping strategy activities table from household survey .............................................................. 42

Page 3 of 49
1 Executive Summary
The Rapid Food Security Assessment was implemented by Voluntas Advisory together with Diwan Market
Research on behalf of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) to provide up-to-date-information on
critical food related needs of displaced population in Libya. The data was collected from 26 August to 6
September 2016, in eight locations, namely Tripoli, Zawiya and Bani Walid in the West, Awbari and Sabha in the
South, and Ajdabiya, Benghazi, and Tobruk in the East. These locations combined host about 53 percent of the
total IDP population in Libya.

1.1 Key findings

The assessment found that 24 percent of all IDP households are food insecure and
they are not able to meet their essential food needs without engaging in atypical
coping strategies. The food insecure households have a poor or borderline food
Household food consumption and use a high share of their budget to cover food needs.
security From 2015 to 2016, overall IDP food insecurity has increased: only 6 percent of all IDPs
were food insecure (moderately or severely) in 2015. In addition to those already food
insecure, 62 percent of all the IDP households are at risk of slipping into food
insecurity. The developments are related to the significant rise in food prices,
depreciation of the Libyan dinar, as well as the lack of liquidity in the Libyan banks.

The level of food insecurity is high in the western and eastern parts of the country,
where the majority of the IDP households are located. At location level, Bani Walid is
Geographical most concerning, with 58 percent of IDPs considered food insecure. In general,
location of food locations close to the conflict areas are hosting the most vulnerable households as
insecure they come from the areas most affected by the ongoing fighting. Although the
households southern region holds only 7 percent of the IDP households, 21 percent of the
households in Awbari are found to be food insecure. Tobruk is the most food secure
location, with no household found food insecure, followed by Zawiyah and Sabha
where only 4 and 7 percent are food insecure.

Food insecure households are typically large families headed by unemployed head of
household. These IDPs households are displaced from less than six months and they
Profile of the are far from their place of origin so they did not establish a social, family or ethnic
food insecure networks in the new areas yet. These households have been particularly affected by
the high inflation and the increased of food prices thus they experienced a reduction
of their income and a significant increase on their share of food expenditure. In order
to maintain a minimum level of food consumption (most of them eat only two meals
per day) they are adopting several coping strategies as spending savings and reducing
non-food expenses on health and education.

Food secure households are more likely to reside in areas far from the conflict and be
Profile of the engaged in salaried work or received state salary. These households have been
food secure displaced for more than one year and they have managed to maintain their work
despite being displaced and/or they have re-established their social and economic ties
in the new areas and thus the impact of the economic crisis was less harsh on them.

Gender aspects Household headed by women are more likely to be food insecure than those headed
on food security by men. Female heads of households are often unemployed and they do not receive
any form of employment.

Page 4 of 49
IDP Food Insecurity Index Scores Across Assessed
Locations
Food Insecurity Index Across Cities
Map 1: Food Security across locations
Tripoli Tobruk
4% Benghazi
19%
Severely Food Zawiyah 4%
Insecure 13%
Bani 24%
Moderately Food 34% 2%
Walid
Insecure 16%
Marginally Food Ajdabiyah
Secure 7% Sabha
Awbari 1%
Food Secure 20%
Page 5 of 49
2 Introduction

1
Since the beginning of the crisis in 2011, over 3 million people have been affected across Libya. The further
escalation of violence starting in May 2014 and the clashes between forces loyal to the general Khalifa Haftar in
the east and militias in the west have led to a significant spike in humanitarian needs, civilian casualties,
displacement as well as the destruction of public infrastructure and the disruption of basic social services and
social protection systems. In addition, in 2016, military operations against the Islamic State located in and around
Sirte have intensified by outside interventions, leading to the displacement of 5,560 households and putting
2
immense strains on the capacity of local communities in Tarhuna, Al Jufrah, and Bani Walid. According to 2017
Humanitarian Needs Overview, an estimated 1.3 million people are in need some form of humanitarian
3
assistance, including approximately 241,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs).

Combined with the unstable political and security situation, Libya is facing the interconnected crisis of lack of
liquidity and a rapid depreciation of the Dinar in relation to the Dollar. Uncertainty and fear over the future
4
political and security situation had a significant effect on Libya’s foreign currency black market. In July 2016 the
5
Dollar costed more than 5 dinars, a record high in the Libyan history. The depreciation of the Libyan currency
had an significant impact on the food security, as Libya still imports the majority of its food due to a harsh natural
environment, which makes agricultural production difficult. Estimates indicate that as much as 80% of food
6
requirements were imported before the conflict. The depreciation of the Libyan Dinar is also related to the
limited access to dollars of the Central Bank of Libya given the fall of oil exports and overall economic output. In
2016, oil production is estimated to have declined for the fourth consecutive year. Consequently, revenues from
the hydrocarbon sector amounted to only a tenth of revenues that accrued over the same period last year. Lack
of funds to pay due subsidies to importers and distributors of basic food since October 2015 translated into a de
7
facto removal of subsidies to food. Consequently, shortages in the supply of food emerged and the black
markets prospered, which according to the World Bank led prices of food to increase by 31 percent in the first
8
half of 2016.

The crash in the Dinar’s black market value is running in parallel with the ongoing cash crisis at Libya’s banks. The
political crisis has directly affected the liquidity availability as the country’s financial institutions split in May 2016
when the crisis culminated with the two central banks (one in Tripoli and one in Tobruk) threatening to circulate
9
rival Libyan dinar banknotes in the country. The general lack of liquidity has increasingly affected peoples’
10
livelihoods for all of 2016, with people queuing outside banks, only to find the vaults empty. Lack of confidence
in the financial system has led to businesses and individuals refusing to deposit cash, instead, leaving it under
their mattresses and increasing the shortage of money for banks. The triple challenges of increased fighting,
depreciation of the Libyan Dinar and lack of liquidity has severely affected food security in Libya especially for
the displaced population.

Due to the access restriction and difficulties in conducting assessments, coupled with highly volatile and fluid
situation, available information on the humanitarian situation in Libya has been limited to date. Against this
background, this rapid food security assessment was conducted implemented by Voluntas Advisory with its local
partner Diwan Market Research on behalf of WFP to inform the food security intervention in 2017. Data
th th,
collection took place from August 26 to September 6 2016 and eight locations were targeted in the three
historical regions of Libya, namely Tripoli, Zawiya and Bani Walid in the West, Awbari and Sabha in the South,
and Ajdabiya, Benghazi, and Tobruk in the East.
1
OCHA (2017): “ Humanitarian Needs Overview, November 2016 Libya”
2
IOM (2016): “Situation Report for August 2016 – Libya Humanitarian Support to Migrants and IDPs”
3
OCHA (2017): “ Humanitarian Needs Overview, November 2016 Libya”
4
Tarhouni, Adam (2016): “Op-Ed: Fear, uncertainty, risk and Libya’s currency black market (1 July 2016)”
5
Libya Herald (2016): “Libyan dinar continues to crash as it breaks 5-dinar mark against the dollar”
6
World Food Programme (2011): “Food Security in Libya: An Overview”
7
World Bank (2016): Libya’s Economic Outlook – October 2016
8
Ibid.
9
The Guardian (2016): “Battle of the banknotes as rival currencies are set to be issued in Libya”
10
Tarhouni, Adam (2016): “Op-Ed: Fear, uncertainty, risk and Libya’s currency black market (1 July 2016)”
Page 6 of 49
3 Objectives and Methodology
3.1 Objectives
The assessment aims to provide an update of the current food security situation of displaced population in Libya,
its scale, and severity. The information generated through the assessment will feed into future programming and
inform the Humanitarian Needs Overview. Furthermore, it will enable WFP to fine-tune response options and
targeting for its 2017 programme.

3.2 Sampling and data collection process
The assessment focused on the population directly affected by the conflict, specifically IDPs, and covers the areas
where a significant number of IDPs has been reported. Eight locations covering the three historical regions of
Libya were selected, namely Tripoli, Zawiya and Bani Walid in the West, Awbari and Sabha in the South, and
Ajdabiya, Benghazi, and Tobruk in the East. The sampling framework allows for statistically representative
findings at the regional levels generalizable to the wider IDP population. Targeted locations were selected based
on the following criteria:
1. Regional diversity: To enable comparison among the three regions the sample was split in order
to cover three locations in East and West and two in the South;
2. Concentration of IDP population: Based on IOM Displacement Tracking Matrix (IOM-DTM)
localities hosting the largest share of IDPs were targeted. The data has been adjusted to reflect IDP
household sizes more accurately;
3. Comparison to historical data: to allow comparison with the previous assessment the locations
that were surveyed in 2014 and 2015 were selected to be part of the rapid assessment.

Altogether, these locations cover about 53 percent of the displaced population in Libya according to IOM-DTM
data from July 2016. In addition, seven of the nine locations surveyed in the previous assessment were selected,
which allowed comparison over time.

A total of 890 IDPs households were selected randomly in the target locations: 100 household interviews with
IDPs were conducted in each location, except the two areas in the South (Sabha and Awbari) where 150 and 137
household interviews were carried respectively (Map 2). Only same gender interviews were conducted. Post data
collection the data was weighted based on the relative number of IDPs in the eight locations.

To validate data and compare food security developments over time, the rapid needs assessment employed data
tabulation using two primary sources of data for comparison:
11
1. Libya Interagency Rapid Assessment, December 2014 ;
12
2. Libya Multi-Sector Needs Assessment, June-July 2015 .

The assessment was outsourced and performed by Voluntas Advisory together with their Libyan partner Diwan
Marketing Research, which has conducted various socio-economic surveys in Libya employing extensive
quantitative methods. The assessment design, including the data collection instruments, were developed by
WFP. Voluntas Advisory implemented data collection, analysis and reporting with inputs and supports from WFP.

All data collection in the field was conducted by researchers from Diwan Market Research. Voluntas Advisory
trained the main coordinators, who provided training of the local level research teams. The data collection tools
were presented and discussed with the enumerators to ensure that the purpose of the assessment was
understood and all questions were clear. In each location, a team leader ensured the overall implementation of
the interviews and performed quality assurance checks. Filled instruments were brought to Tripoli for final
quality assurance by the data collection manager. The quantitative data was entered online using Survey
Monkey. Most of the researchers have been involved in the past food security assessments and in the ongoing
monitoring work for WFP and are, therefore, familiar with the topics and targeted group.
11 Libya Interagency Rapid Assessment, December 2014.

12 Libya Multi-Sector Needs Assessment, June-July 2015.
Page 7 of 49
890 Household Interviews conducted in 8 locations
covering all three historic regions of Libya
Map 2: Sample Distribution in Libya

West East South
Overall Rank IDP IDP Share of

Name in English
Nationally households individuals* IDPs
1 Benghazi 10,346 59,696 16% Zawiyah 100

Tobruk
102 Tripoli 101
Benghazi 100
2 Bani Waled 7,200 42,192 11%
100
100 Ajdabiyah
3 Ajdabiya 5,496 35,229 9%
Bani Walid
4 Abu Salim (Tripoli) 4,934 27,863 7%
8 Tobruk 2,306 14,133 4% 137

150 Sabha
9 Janzour (Tripoli) 1,950 11,012 3% Awbari
15 Az Zawiyah 893 4,715 1%
18 Sabha 740 5,136 1%
22 Awbari + Ghurayfah 641 4,478 1%
*Adjusted numbers for data collection locations based on

average family size of IDP families. Other use numbers from IOM DTM

Following data collection, the data has been weighted according to accurately reflect the share of IDPs in each
location.
3.3 Limitations
A number of challenges and constraints were identified as part of the study:
• Representativeness: while IOM DTM data provides a good overview of the distribution of IDPs in Libya
and their place of origin, it is hard to ascertain the representativeness of the obtained sample. It is,
therefore, difficult to generalize to the wider IDP population living in areas not covered by the
assessment. The data can, however, be indicative of the situation for same IDP groups (e.g., Tawergha)
displaced in locations not covered by the assessment, as well as distinct sub-groups (e.g. unemployed,
female-headed households, etc.).
• Social desirability effect: some of the topics included in the assessment touch upon issues that are
socially awkward and stigmatized e.g. begging, having low consumption or having received support.
Therefore there can be a risk that findings related to these topics are underestimated. To contain this
risk as much as possible the researchers have been undergoing rigorous training on how to interview
IDPs on sensitive topics, ensuring their confidentiality and building trust.

Despite the limitations, the assessment is perceived to provide an accurate picture of the situation of vulnerable
groups in the assessed locations.

Page 8 of 49
4 IDP Households Characteristics
This section presents the main characteristics of the IDP households covered by the assessment, including
household size, main reasons for displacement and employment situation.
4.1 Demographics
The average household size is six. Forty percent of the IDP households consists of more than six members. The
vast majority of the IDP households (88%) are headed by a male (Figure 5).

Household Characteristics
Figure 1: IDP Household Characteristics
Head of Household Number of Persons in IDP Households
>6
40%
Male
88%
6% 0-2
Female
28%
5-6
27%
3-4

4.2 Timing of displacement
Given the protractedness of the unstable situation in Libya, it is not surprising that the vast majority (70%) of
IDPs have been displaced for at least a year. Thirty-six percent of IDPs have been displaced for more than 24
months indicating the prolonged effects on the country’s instability.

© 2016 Voluntas Advisory. All rights reserved. Strictly Confidential.
3
The causes of displacement are consistently related to insecurity across locations. The vast majority (90%) of IDPs
cite the deteriorating security situation as the main reason for their displacement. “Ethnic conflict” and “political
conflict” have been also cited as the main reason for displacement by respondents.

Security Deterioration Main Reason for Displacement
Figure 2: Timing and main reason for displacement
Time in current area Main reason for displacement
Political conflict Religious conflict

> 24 months 0-6 months Others (Please specify)
Ethnic conflict
9% 1%
4% 4%
0%
36% 6-12 months
21%
34% 90%
12-24 months Security deterioration

Page 9 of 49

4.3 Employment
Among IDPs, the employment rate remain high, as such more than half are still employed. This could be
attributed to the fact that 70 percent of IDPs have been displaced for more than a year, which has given them
some chance to find employment in the new areas of residency.

Among the unemployed, only one in ten has been without a job for at least a year. The non-working IDPs are
either house ladies or receiving pensions from public employment without working or unemployed. There is a
multitude of reasons found among the IDPs for not working. However, 40 percent reported illness or age as the
main reason for not working, 26 percent of the IDPs who do not have a job, found that this was either due to
having given up (13%), or just not believing in the possibility of finding a job (23%). Around one in ten of the non-
working IDPs stated that they did not know how to find employment.

About half of the IDPs work as employee
Figure 3: IDP Employment status
Current Employment Status Reasons for unemployment
Security
7% No chance of work
23%
Pensioner and working
5% House lady Illness, Aging
Employee
7%
40%
Pensioner and not working 13%
10% Tired of looking
2% 10%
6%
53% Don’t know how to find job
Waiting for suitable job Didn’t find a suitable job
13%
Unemployed and looking for a job
Unemployed had a job last 12 months
2%
10% Unemployed and not looking for a job
Others (Specify)
No 11% Yes
The vast majority of the employed IDPs are public sector employees. Four percent are self-employed outside the
agriculture sector or engaged in unskilled work while 6 percent worked as skilled workers.

Almost a fifth (17%) of IDPs reported that they had changed their place of work during the past year. While it
seems counter-intuitive that 92 percent of the employed IDPs, have been able to remain in their previous jobs
despite being displaced, this might be explained by the vast majority of Libyans being employed in the public
sector. Here they continue to receive their salary despite not being able to show up for work. This also
corresponds with findings, listed below, where “state salaries” is reported as primary source of income for most
IDPs. However given the deteriorating situation of the Libyan economy there is a risk that these IDPs will stop
receiving salary an any time in the future if they do not work. This will mean that the vast majority of the IDPs
will lose their primary source of income.

Page 10 of 49

78 % of IDPs are employed in the Public Sector
Figure 4: Employed IDPs
Job Type for Employed IDPs Changed place of your work during the last 12 months
17% Yes
No
Public servant
Self-employed (Non-Farm)
4%
5% Other (please specify)

1% Farming (Self Employed)
78% 2% Agricultural labour
Changed job during the last 12 months
6%
Skilled labour
4%
Non-Skilled labour
No 8% Yes

5 Income and Expenditure
The following section describes the overall trends in income and expenditures for the IDPs since the escalation
of armed conflicts in May 2014.

5.1 Income source
As most IDPs stated being employed in the public sector, it is not surprising that 42 percent of IDPs reported
state salary, as the primary source of income. Thus, state salaries are by far the main primary source of income
and constitute 83 percent of the income of IDPs employed in the public sector. Furthermore, social security
programs contributes to 79 percent of the total income emphasizing the dependence upon the public sector of
many IDPs. Other sources cited by households are: salaried work, casual labor and support from relatives.

Findings from the REACH June 2016 Multi-Sector Needs Assessment confirm that salaried employment was
reported as the primary source of income among the IDP key informants, followed by pensions and social
13
security.

13 REACH (2016): “Multi-Sector Needs Assessment III Libya Report June 2016”
Page 11 of 49

State salary is the main income source for 42 % of IDPs and

Figure 5: Income sources and relative contribution to total household income
on average contributes to 83 % of the income
Main Income Sources Last 30 Days and Relative Contribution to Total Household Income
Average contribution to income

Main source of income
82% 83%
79%
73% 72%
68%
42%
37%
33% 33%
31%
28%
25%
20%
14% 15%
6% 7% 5%
5% 3%
<1% <1% 2% 1% <1%
Sale of Casual Skilled Salaried Petty Kinship Begging External Borrowing Spend State Social Remittances
Agriculture labor labor work trade support assistance savings salary security
Products

While many IDPs still have income sources from employment, the eruption of fighting in 2014 seems to have
negatively impacted the income of around half the IDPs. As such, 29 percent reported that their income had
decreased by up to 50 percent compared to the May 2014. Even more concerning, almost a fifth (17%) stated
that income had dropped by more than 50 percent since the escalation of the conflict. However, the impact of
the conflicts in Libya also seems to differ between IDPs, as such, almost half (47%) reported that their income
was almost the same as compared to before May 2014.

A number of challenges to generating income were observed by IDPs households. Lack of job opportunities and
delay or non-payment of salaries are the two income challenges reported by the majority of the interviewed
households. This indicates, that while the employment rate among IDPs is rather high, underemployment could
be a significant issue, especially related to income generation. This is backed by the fact that 44 percent of IDP
households report low salaries as a primary income challenge. Recently displaced IDPs reported that some
government employers and companies had blocked or decreased their salaries, while others explained that IDPs
were unable to work because they felt at risk of discrimination14. Finally, the non-functioning bank system is
mentioned by 46 percent of IDPs as a primary income challenge.
14 REACH Rapid IDP Protection Needs Assessment, May 2016

Page 12 of 49
46 % of IDPs report decreasing income compared to before
May 2014, main challenge being salary not being paid
Figure 6: Income situation
Income situation compared to before May 2014 Main Income Challenges
No challenge/
2%
difficulties faced
About the same No/lack of

60%
opportunities
47%
44% Low wage/salary
29%
Salary not paid,
58%
delayed
3%
Increased (by less than 50%) 5% Decreased by 0-50% Banking system
Significantly increased 46%
not functioning
(By more than 50%) 17%
Highly decreased (by more than 50%)
1% Other

Figure 7: Main income challenges across locations
Page 13 of 49
State salary is the main income source for 42 % of IDPs and
on average contributes to 83 % of the income
Main Income Challenges Across Locations
No/lack of opportunities Low wage/salary Salary not paid, delayed Banking system not functioning
94%
90% 92%
89% 89% 89%
86% 88%
83%
70%
56% 61% 62% 63%

56% 57% 57% 55%
47% 45% 48%

43% 44%
39% 40%
33%
29% 30% 29%
26% 27%
15%
Tripoli Zawiyah Bani Walid Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
5.2 Expenditures

When it comes to expenditures of the IDPs’, the situation looks even bleaker. IDPs households reportedly spend
63% in Bani Walid use >75% of expenditure on food, same
more than half of their cash expenditures on food. Main expenditures among IDP households are, in order of
significance, food, health/medicine, and rent/housing.

is repoted by 33% in Bengahzi and 25% in Ajdabiyah
Figure 8: Average share of expenditure
Expenditure Shares Shares of expenditures spend on food
Other expenditures 1% 1% 0% 1%
1%
Transportation 10%
8% 13% 12%
3% 19% 11%
Rent 26% 26%25%
10%33% 28%
11%
37%
48%
Education 5% 63%
59%
Food 26%27%
13%
85% 19%
Health
70% 93%
88% 86% 88%
81%
73% 26% Page 14 of 49 70%
29%
61% 37%
20% 52%
23%
16% 19%
15%

The expenditure trends vary considerably across Libya. In both the Western and Eastern regions of Libya, IDPs
have high shares expenditures on food. As such, 39 percent of IDPs in the West and 46 percent of IDPs in the
East spend more than 65 percent of their expenditures on food.

Accordingly, in Bani Walid, Benghazi and Ajdabiyah high percentage of households spends more than 75% of
expenditures on food. These households are likely to be vulnerable to economic shocks as there is little additional
budget available for any other expenses except the most basic requirements.
The food expenditure situation is more positive in Zawiyah, Sabha and Tobruk, where the vast majority is
spending less than 50 percent of their total expenditures on food.

However, in general the share of IDPs spending less than 50 percent of total expenditures on food seems to have
dropped by around ten percentage points in most cities in comparison with 2015. Only Tripoli and Tobruk have
seen positive improvements, as in Tripoli the share of IDPs spending less than half of their expenditures on food
increased from 15 percent to 61 percent, and in Tobruk from 52 percent to 93 percent between 2015 and 2016.

Figure 9: Average share of expenditure on food by regions and by locations
3%
20% 29% 24%
10% 22%
26%
77% 31%
35%
23%
South West East
<75% spent on food
65% - <75% spent on food
50%- <65% spent on food
<50% spent on food
Page 15 of 49
1% 1% 1% 1%
1% 7% 1%
10% 12% 12%
19% 12%
26% 26% 25%
10% 33% 29%
37%
48%
63%
26% 27%
85% 19%
70% 93%
88% 86% 88%
81%
73% 26% 70%
29%
61% 37%
20% 52%
24%
15% 16% 1% 19%
10% 11%
2015
2016
2015
2016
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
Tripoli Zawiyah Bani Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
Walid
<50% spent on food 50%- <65% spent on food 65% - <75% spent on food <75% spent on food

Looking at the place of origin of IDPs, 60 percent of the households from Wadi al Hayaa / Awbari spends more
than 75 percent of all their expenditures on food. Among IDPs from Tawergha, about 36 percent who spend
more than 75 percent of the expenditure on food.

Across duration of displacement, the share of IDPs spending more than 75 percent of expenditures on food is
the largest among IDPs who have been displaced between six months and a year, dropping to 27 percent for
between one and two years and falling even more to 22 percent for IDPs, who have been displaced for more
than two years. Somewhat surprisingly, the lowest share of IDPs, who spend more than 75 percent of household
expenditures on food is found among the most recently displaced.

Figure 10: Average share of expenditure on food by IDP Place of Origin and displacement time
Page 16 of 49
5%
13% 12% 5% 10%
19%
27%
36% 32%
21% 21%
31%
60% 20% 28%
16%
14% 25%
29% <75% spent on food
42% 26% 65% - <75% spent on food
37%
9% 27% 50%- <65% spent on food
59% 31%
7% 41% <50% spent on food
36%
31%
23% 25% 22% 24%
12%
In 2016, 60 percent of the IDPs reported a significant increase in expenditures of more than 50 percent since the
outbreak of fighting in May 2014. The increase in expenditures is likely to be related to the high inflation rates
over 2016, which has led to substantial decrease in the real purchasing power of the population, especially given
rising basic food prices. In addition, lack of funds to pay due subsidies to importers and distributers of basic food
since October 2015 translated into a de facto removal of subsidies to food. Traditionally, Libyans received
government food subsidies which reduced the cost of key commodities by 50%.
An additional 20 percent reported an increase of less than 50 percent, whereas only 13 percent stated that their
expenditure level is similar to before May 2014.

Comparing expenditures and income for IDP households clearly indicates the challenging situation faced by IDPs
following the intensification of the conflicts. 75 percent of IDPs have had expenditures increased more than
income, while only a fifth have seen corresponding increases in expenses and income, and only 7 percent have
had higher increases in income than expenses. The increased use of negative coping strategies, as explained in
the following chapters, could somehow explained how people are able to meet additional expenditures while
their incomes are shrinking.
Figure 11: Expenditure development and income comparison
Page 17 of 49
For 75 % of IDP Households, Expenditure has Increased
more than Income since May 2014
Comparison of Expenditure and Income Development
Expenditure Compared to Before May 2014
for IDP Households
Expenditure increase higher
Significantly increased than income increase
Highly decreased (By more than 50%) 75%
(by more than 50%)
Decreased by 0-50% 3%
4%
60%
About the same 13%
20% 7%
19%
Increased (by less than 50%) Expenditure increase lower
than income increase Expenditure and income
change the same

6 External Assistance
While food distribution has been increasingly difficult to undertake in Libya especially after the pullout of the UN
agencies from the country, food aid still reaches IDPs. However, only a limited share of both food aid (10%), food
assistance (4%) and non-food assistance (6%) are reaching IDPs. The cities where most food aids are provided
are Tripoli, Tobruk, and Sabha. These findings are also seen in the REACH June 2016 Multi-Sector Needs
Assessment, where 43 percent of IDPs receive food through distributions from the government of humanitarian
15
actors. In the early months of 2016, the International Confederation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC) and
16
Libyan Red Crescent have also distributed food to IDPs in Tripoli, Misrata, and Tobruk.

When it comes to food assistance through cash based transfer, less than one in ten of IDPs across cities, except
Sabha have received this. In Sabha, almost a third of IDPs have received food assistance. Non-food assistance
shares are also vastly larger in Sabha, where more than half of IDPs report having received assistance in the form
of non-food items.

16 Libya News Agency (2016): “IRCC and LRC distribute aid to displaces people in Tripoli, Misrata and Tobruk (13-02-2016)”
Page 18 of 49
Only Limited Share of IDPs Receive Food Aid, Assistance
Figure 12: Food Aid, Assistance, and Non-food assistance
and Non-food Assistance

% of IDPs across key locations receiving various types
IDPs receiving various types of support
of support
100%
4% 6% Food aid 25%
Yes 10% 8% Tripoli
Food Assistance 9%
Non-food assistance 0%
0% Zawiyah
0%
4%
0% Bani Walid
1%
7%
7% Ajdabiyah
5%
4%
No 3% Benghazi
3%
34% 6% Tobruk
7%
19%
29% Sabha
55%
5%
3% Awbari
13%
Food aid (food Food Assistance Non-food
items and in kind (cash, vouchers) assistance
contributions) (e.g. cooking
utensils, soap)

The largest providers of non-food aid and other support to IDPs are religious charities. Nineteen percent of IDPs
report having received non-food aid or assistance from religious charities. This is followed by families (14%),
Community Based Organizations (15%) and communities in general (14%).
Furthermore, communities and families/relatives are also the largest provider of other types of support. This
provides backing to the correlation between distance from the origin and negative coping strategies discussed
above, as the main fall back of IDPs are related to their immediate community or relatives.

Figure 13: Non-food support
Page 19 of 49
Religious charities, families, CBOs and communities are
the largest providers for non-food support to IDPs
Actors providing support to IDPs
Non food
Other support
19%
17%
15%
15%
14% 14%
13%
9% 9%
9%
6%
5% 6%
4%
2%
0%
Government UN agencies NGOs CBOs Religious Community Local tribe Family /

/authorities Charity relatives

7 Food Insecurity situation and trends
The status of household food security is analyzed applying the WFP’s standard methodology “Consolidated
Approach for Reporting Indicators of Food Security” (CARI). CARI looks at two domains, namely current status
and coping capacity. For each domain, relevant indicators are employed: food consumption for current status;
and share of expenditure on food as well as livelihood coping indicator for coping capacity. For each indicator,
households are classified into different levels of food insecurity to derive a food security index. Please refer to
Annex 1 for the detailed computation process of CARI.

The table below shows the results of the analysis. The interviewed households are characterized by an acceptable
level of current consumption with poor coping capacity: i.e. households’ minimum food consumption is mostly
met but their coping capacity is stretched with a high share of expenditure on food and a large proportion of
households adopting severe coping strategies. Overall, 24 percent of the households are food insecure, leaving
the majority of 62 percent vulnerable to food insecurity (marginally food secure).

Table 1: CARI Classification
Food secure Food insecure

Domain Indicator
Marginally Moderately Severely
Food Secure
Food Secure Food Insecure Food
(1)
(2) (3) Insecure (4)
Food
Current Food
Consumption 76% / 16% 8%
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
expenditure on 54% 23% 8% 14%
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood coping
Asset Depletion strategy 26% 20% 40% 13%
categories
14% 62% 18% 6%
Food Security Index
76% 24%
Page 20 of 49

Table 2: CARI definitions
Food security Description
100% 6%
classification Severely
Severely food
Extreme food consumption gaps OR extreme loss of 18% food
insecure livelihood assets 80% insecure
insecure
Moderately food Significant food consumption gaps, OR marginally able to Moderatel

Food
insecure meet minimum food needs only with irreversible coping 60% y food
strategies insecure
Marginally food Minimally adequate food consumption without engaging in 62% Marginally
40% food
secure irreversible coping strategies
secure
Food secure
Food secure Adequate food consumption without engaging in typical Food

20%
coping strategies secure
14%
0%

Although the proportion of ‘food insecure (severely/moderately food insecure)’ households are relatively small
at 24 percent, a vast majority of IDP households of 62 percent are ‘marginally food secure’ and at risk of food
insecurity. The ‘food insecure’ households typically have significant food consumption gaps and/or adopting
severe coping strategies with their household budget stretched to buy food. The ‘marginally food secure’
households have managed to meet the minimum food consumption through adopting livelihood coping
strategies.
8 Food consumption
Measured by the frequency and the diversity of the food consumed over the past 7 days, the food consumption
among the majority of the interviewed households is mostly acceptable.
Twenty-four percent of the households are borderline or poor consumption with significant food consumption
gap, and those households under these categories typically consume only main staples almost daily, vegetables
every other days, and meat twice a week, while fruit or dairy products are rarely consumed.

Figure 14: Food Consumption Score
Page 21 of 49
Food Consumption Food consumption by FCG
Group
100%
Poor food 8%
consumpti 90%
on (≤28) 16%
80%
70%
Poor Borderline Acceptable
Borderline 60%
food Sugar 0 1 3
consumpti 50% Oil/fat 1 2 3
on (28.5 - Dairy
40% 0 1 4
42) 76%
Legumes 0 0 1
30%
Acceptabl Fruits 0 0 1
e food 20%
consumpti Meat/Fish 1 3 5
on (≥42.5) 10% Vegetables 2 3 4
0% Main Staple 6 6 7

As figure 15 shows, there has been a general decrease in food consumption scores across Libya, from 98 percent
of IDPs having an acceptable food consumption score in 2015 to only 76 percent in 2016. At regional level, the
western region has the highest proportion of households with unacceptable food consumption.
Ajdabiyah and Awbari have seen significant drops from 2015 to 2016 in the share of IDPs with acceptable food
consumption scores; from 100 percent to 81 percent and 64 percent respectively. Bani Walid has the highest
proportion of households with poor food consumption, with less than half of the households having acceptable
diets. This deterioration might be linked with the increase number of IDPs in these locations in 2016.

Figure 15: Food Consumption Score by regions and location
Page 22 of 49
5% 5%
13%
11%
18%
22%
85%
77%
64%
South West East
Acceptable Borderline Poor
2% 2% 4% 5% 1% 5% 4% 2%
6% 6% 5% 6% 8%
8%
18% 23% 14% 11%
18%
28%
31%
100% 98% 96% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 100%

94% 94% 90% 95%
80% 81% 84%
76%
64%
46%
2014
2015
2016
2014
2015
2016
2016
2014
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2014
2015
2016
2015
Tripoli Zawiyah Bani Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari2016

Walid

Looking at the food consumption score for different displaced groups, IDPs from Awbari/Wadi al Hayaa stands
out with considerably worse score. Here less than half have an acceptable food consumption score, compared
to groups from Benghazi (91%), Sirte (75%), Tawergha (74%) and groups with other places of origin (77%).
Furthermore, groups from Awbari/Wadi al Hayaa have the largest share of IDPs with a poor food consumption
score, with almost a third (29%), which is significantly higher than other displacement groups. Also, newly
displaced groups seem to have somewhat lower food consumption scores.

Looking at food consumption for male and female headed households, female heads of households constitute a
fourth of IDPs with a poor food consumption score and 14% and 10% of the IDPs with borderline and acceptable
food consumption scores respectively.
Page 23 of 49

On average IDPs with a poor food consumption score, have a medium to long distance to their place of origin
and have smaller households, with more men than women. IDPs having a borderline food consumption score are
on average large households with more male than female members, who has a medium distance to their place
of origin. IDPs with an acceptable food consumption score have on average a shorter distance to their place of
origin and medium sized households, with an equal split of men and women.

Figure 16: Food Consumption Score by Displacement Groups, Sex of Head of Households and Displacement
time
3% 6% 5% 7%
6% 10% 8% 8% 9% 8%
18%
29% 20% 18% 16% 12%
15% 15% 17%
27%
21%
25%
91%
77% 77% 80% 75%
75% 74% 76%
62% 64%
46%
In relation with the number of meals eaten per day, in Bani Walid and Tripoli more than a quarter of the IDPs
gets less than three meals per day. The time of displacement seems to be positively correlated with number of
meals per day. As such, the longer time an IDP has been displaced the higher the number of meals eaten per day
will be. This may be explained by the fact that the longer the displacement, the longer the IDPs will have had to
establish a footing and livelihood mechanisms.

Figure 17: Meals eaten per day by sex of head of households and average of number of days displaced
Page 24 of 49
21%
30%
702.4
79%
70%
769.2
Male HH Female HH Average # of days

days displaced
Three or more meals Two or less meals

8.1 Food sources

Despite an increase in expenditures on food, the major food source is market purchase with cash the primary
way of obtaining food for IDPs continues to be through purchasing it with cash at the market. Survey findings
show that nearly 89 percent of all households continued to access their food through purchase – 83 percent
through purchase in cash, while the remaining 6 percent buy their food on credit. About 3 percent of the
households get their food from external support (Figure x). Local production has been affected by conflict and
farmers reported that the destruction of irrigations systems and disruption of supply routes prevented them
from purchasing seeds, particularly for crops such as vegetables, where seeds are not normally saved from the
previous harvest. In addition, the increase in fuel prices also limited farmers’ ability to carry out mechanized
operations. Attacks on the commercial port in Benghazi are reported to have disrupted critical food import
routes. There has been a substantial decline in food imports as foreign shippers fear making deliveries.17

About 89 percent of the IDPs households are buying food in the market and are highly vulnerable to market
shocks and volatility of prices, both of which have become common in recent years. Inflationary pressures
remained high over the first half of 2016 leading to substantial loss in real purchasing power of the population,
especially given the rising basic food prices. Higher food prices translate into a further increase in expenditures
on food to the detriment of other needs such as health, education and asset/livelihoods building.
Figure 18: Food sources
17 FAO, GIEWS Country Brief, November 2016.

Page 25 of 49
Gift Zakat Loan Own
Food aid 3% 1% 1% Production
Market 5% 1%
(Credit)
6%
Market (Cash)
83%

Looking at the source of food by locations, on average IDPs in Tripoli use the market considerably less than in
other Libyan cities. Market purchases through both cash and credit dropped significantly from 2015 to 2016. As
such, 71 percent of IDPs in Tripoli use the market for food acquisition. Several factors could influence this
discrepancy; either the market in Tripoli is not entirely functioning regarding providing food for IDPs or other
food sources such as food aid is more readily available. Also, this results can be explained with the fact that
exchange is likely to be higher in hectic cities such as Tripoli. It might also be that IDPs in urban settings rely on
informal markets rather than official ones, and thus the variance between areas might differ in what is considered
the market.

Awbari and Tobrok have the highest proportion of households purchasing their food on credit – 15 percent and
11 percent, respectively.

Figure 19: Average use of key food sources across locations
Page 26 of 49
3% 2% 2% 3% 4%
10% 1% 7% 1% 4% 2% 14%
18% 20%
11%
1% 15%
11%
6%
97% 94%
87% 90%
79% 82%
71%
65%

Walid
Market purchase (cash) Market purchase (credit) Food aid Other
Figure 20: Use of market (cash and credit) as food source 2015 vs. 2016
99% 97%
96% 96%
93% 91% 92% 93% 93% 94% 91%
90%
86%
80%
71%
Tripoli Zawiyah Bani Walid Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari
2015 2016
9 Coping Strategies
The following section presents the findings on livelihood coping strategies and reduced coping strategies
employed by IDP households.

9.1 Livelihood Coping Strategies

Page 27 of 49
Assessment findings show that multiple coping mechanisms were employed to a worrying degree by the IDPs.
More than two-thirds of the interviewed households reportedly used livelihood coping strategies due to lack of
money to buy food or other basic needs. Fifty-three percent of the households resorted to emergency or crisis
livelihood coping, such as selling productive assets or sending children to work, undermining future productivity
and capacity to cope. A large share of IDP households spent savings, or sold household assets. These strategies
may be reversible but a prolonged displacement would lead to a reduced ability for households to deal with
future uncertainties. The excessive use of coping strategies is an indication of a high level of risk to food insecurity
among IDP households. The overall use of emergency coping strategies has increased in comparison with 2015
findings. In 2015 only one in ten employed emergency coping strategies, which has increased to 14 percent in
2016. The overall use of emergency coping strategies is also higher than in 2014 (12%).

Figure 21: Livelihood coping strategies used by households
2016 26% 20% 40% 14%

2015 33% 20% 36% 11%
2014 29% 9% 56% 12%
No coping Stress Coping Crisis Coping Emergency coping

The most common coping mechanism is spend savings, followed by reducing non-food expenses on health and
education, borrowing food or buying food on credit. Among the IDPs, 23 percent sold household assets as a
coping mechanism, whereas 9 percent stated that they did not do so because they had already resorted to this
coping mechanism. These findings are in line with June 2016 REACH multi-sector assessment that found that the
most frequent coping strategies used by IDPs included spending savings, buying food on credit or selling
18
household goods. Twenty-six percent of households have adopted no coping mechanisms. This could either be
attributed to the lack of available coping mechanisms or no need for employing negative coping mechanisms.

Figure 22: Livelihood coping strategies

Emergency Coping
Stress Coping Crisis Coping

Page 28 of 49
At regional level, both the South and the West have more than a fifth of IDPs adopting emergency coping
strategies, compared to only 5 percent in the East. With regards to crisis coping strategies, 48 percent of IDPs in
the West has employed compared to 23 percent in the South and 35 percent in the East.
Across locations, a spike from 2015 to 2016 in the use of emergency coping strategies is found primarily in Tripoli
(27%-32%) and Sabha (6%-29%). The increase in emergency coping strategies is potentially related to the
continuing deterioration in Libya’s economic situation and the related steep increase in food prices especially in
the South. Furthermore, continuing fighting in the Western region can explain the deteriorating situation in
Tripoli, whereas the results from Sabha might be linked with the influx of IDPs from the fighting in Sirte. On the
other hand, Benghazi experienced a decrease from 15 percent of IDPs resorting to emergency coping strategies
in 2015 to only 1 percent in 2016, indicating a stabilization of the IDP situation.

Figure 23: Livelihood Coping Strategies by regions and locations
5%
23% 22%
35%
23%
48%
20%
21%
21% 40%
33%
10%
South West East
No coping Stress Coping

Crisis Coping Emergency coping
Page 29 of 49
2% 1% 3%
4% 6%
9% 9%
12% 14% 14% 12%
15% 15%
18%
24%
27% 28% 29%
32% 21%
33%
44%
30% 37% 37% 17%
58% 36%
39%
65%
48% 48%
60% 29%
32% 29%
46% 8% 24%
31%
51% 57%
28% 28% 24%
7%
26%
12% 8% 22%
16%
2%
12% 50% 8%
27%
42% 44%
35% 34%
29% 29% 30% 29%
24% 26% 26% 24% 24%
12% 20%
18%
15%
10%
5%
2014
2015
2016
2014
2015
2016
2016
2014
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2014
2015
2016
2015
2016
Walid

Among displacement groups, IDPs from Wadi al Hayaa / Awbari consistently stands out negatively. This is also
the case for the use of coping strategies, where a third of the displacement has employed emergency coping
strategies.

The use of emergency coping strategies seems to correlate with the displacement duration. However, the share
of IDPs who employ no coping strategies at all are significantly lower among recently displaced IDPs. This
indicates that the situation for IDPs is worsened over time for a share of IDPs, but also that between a fifth and
20 percent of IDPs can create a sustainable condition for themselves over time.

Given the high usage of crisis livelihood coping strategies, coupled with the high reliance on savings, it is likely
that IDP households will further resort to using emergency livelihood coping strategies in the upcoming months.

Page 30 of 49
Figure 24: Livelihood coping strategies by displacement groups and displacement time
6% 8% 8% 7%
11% 13%
17%
26%
34%
30%
33%
51% 44% 48%
43%
42%
43%
32% 30%
20%
25% 16%
17%
16%
16% 36%
36% 26% 33%

26% 29%
22% 24%
17%
5% 8%
Benghazi Awbari Sirte Tawergha Other 0-6 6-12 12-24 > 24

months months months
9.2 Consumption based coping

Households were asked if they had to employ consumption-based coping due to lack of food or money to buy
food over the past seven days. Almost 75 percent of the interviewed households adopted some form of coping.
Most commonly cited coping strategies are “rely on cheaper foods (67%)”, “limit portion size (59%)” and “restrict
adults’ consumption so that children can eat (50%)”.

In line with other measures of food security measures, the locations with the largest proportion of households
using one or more coping strategies was Bani Walid, where 99 percent of households had to cope with food
shortages in the week before the survey. As such, Bani Walid, has a considerably higher Reduced Coping Strategy
Score, compared to other IDP locations. Tobruk and Awbari seem to be overall better off, with lower average
scores, thus confirming the overall trend over a rather larger variance in the IDP food related needs across Libya.

Figure 25: Consumption-based coping strategies across locations
41
19 18 18
15
10
7 7
Page 31 of 49
3 3
2 2 2
Rely on Limited Restrict Borrowed Reduced

cheaper food meals consumption food meals
by adults
Even though Bani Walid, consistently stands out in terms of negative food security, this might be related to the
origin of the IDPs. As the figure below indicates, the further away from the place of origin, the higher the reduced
coping strategy score for the IDPs. While the correlation between distance to place of origin and food security is
weak, it is still statically significant. The correlation might suggest that IDPs rely on social, family or ethnic
networks when displaced. These networks are weakened the further away the IDPs are displaced from their
origin, thus creating an increase in their reduced coping strategy score. Without social networks, the IDPs have
fewer sources to rely on for support given their displacement.

10 Profile of the food insecure
In this section, the association between household food insecurity and household characteristics/circumstances
is explored.
10.1 Geography
Across regions, the West stands out as the most food insecure, with one in ten being severely food insecure and
24 percent moderately food insecure. This is significantly worse than the situation found in the South and the
East, where 87 percent and 85 percent respectively are food secure.

The distribution of the food insecure households varies by province. Provinces that are bordering or are close to
the recent conflict areas are likely to host larger proportions of food insecure IDP households. The fighting in
Sirte and clashes between the opposing forces in the West and East have increased pressure on institutions and
had an impact on food availability and on the economic situation, which has affected IDPs negatively across Libya.
Higher rates of food insecure households are observed in Bani Walid (38%), Awbari (21%) and Tripoli (19%)
compared to the other location (17% and 18% for Benghazi and Ajdabiyah respectively).

Some of the key drivers of food insecurity in Libya include the ongoing political instability, conflicts and insecurity,
increasing cost of living including high health expenses, inflations and lack of liquidity, high and volatile food
prices, poor government capacity to provide social services, very limited agricultural production and high
dependence on markets to access food. The armed conflict has disrupted commercial supply routes, limiting the
availability of food and pushing up prices in the inhospitable desertic southern governorates.

Page 32 of 49
The graph below illustrates the development in the food insecurity index across the eight Libyan cities for 2015
and 2016. Overall, the findings indicate that IDPs are more food insecure in 2016 compared to 2015. The
proportion of food secure IDPs have dropped from 33 percent to 14 percent, which also reflects a general decline
in the food security situation of IDPs. As such, 24 percent are food insecure in 2016 compared to 0 percent in
2015.
Figure 26: Food security across regions and locations
3%
13% 11%
12%
Severely
24% Foof
Insecure
47% Moderately
Food
67% Insecure
Marginally
Food Secure
58%
Food Secure
39%
18%
7%
South West East
2% 2%
4% 2% 4% 7% 1%
19% 24% 16% 13% 20%
38%
55% 51%
68% 71%
80% 34% 85% 42%
90% 88%
100% 64% 65%
75%
62%
41% 42% 41% 37%

28% 29%
20% 18% 18% 15%
10% 12%
6%
2015
2016
2015
2016
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016

Walid
Food Secure Marginally Food Secure Moderately Food Insecure Severely Foof Insecure
Page 33 of 49
If we look at the place of origin of the IDPs, households from Wadi Al Hayaa/Awbari and Sirte are significantly
worse off than other groups. Among IDPs from Awbari, 31 percent are severely food insecure, 28 percent are
moderately food insecure, and only 10 percent are food secure. The higher insecurity of IDPs from Awbari is
related to the fact that compared to the other displacement groups, they have considerably lower employment
levels (only 27 % employed compared to the 46 % among Tawergha which has the second lowest employment
level). With regards to IDPs from Sirte, around 5 percent are found to be food insecure, whereas 20 percent are
moderately food insecure.

Figure 27: Food security across displacement groups
3% 5% 4% 4%
5%
13%
31% 20% 23%
Severely Foof Insecure
80% 28% Moderately Food

67%
61% 58% Insecure
Marginally Food Secure

30%
15% 17% Food Secure

13% 10% 14%

10.2 Demography

Food secure households are likely to have a smaller/medium household size and be headed by a male. The
mean average household size among the food secure households is 5,9 compared to 6,2 for food insecure
households. Women headed household exhibit a higher rate of food insecurity. Thirty-nine percent of women-
headed households are food insecure while the rate is lower among the male-headed households at 22 percent.
The difference could be explained by higher levels of unemployment among women (only 8 % are employed
compared to 59 % of male-headed household), fewer income sources due to lack of jobs before displacements
and thus lack of pensions.
Figure 28: Food security by Sex of head of household and Employment status

5% 3% 4% 4% 3%
17% 11%
17% 24% 20%
22% Severely Foof

63% Insecure
29% 71%
65% Moderately Food
62% 64% Insecure
57%
41% Marginally Food
27% Secure
22%
15% 20%
3% 6% 12% 7% 3% Food Secure

Page 34 of 49

Households with their heads being unemployed employment are likely to be more food insecure compared to
the employed household heads. Thirty-five percent of households are food insecure among the unemployed
heads of households while the rate is 14 percent among the employed household heads. While around half the
IDPs report having a job, there are significant variations across the surveyed districts. As such, 78 percent of IDPs
in Tobruk and 76 percent in Awbari are employed, whereas only 28 percent in Bani Walid and 50 percent in
Ajdabiyah have a job.

Recently-arrived households (0-6 months) are more likely to be food insecure. Recently displaced IDPs both
have the highest share of severely food insecure (11%) as well as the lowest share of food secure (5%).
A striking difference of household food security status is observed among the recently arrived IDP households
compared to those who arrived more than a year ago. Food insecurity is high among the households that arrived
less than six months ago (28%), followed by 6-12 months ago (20%), 12-24 month (26%) and more than two years
(24%). Looking at the time of displacement for IDPs, Bani Walid and Awbari stands out with hosting the largest
share of new IDPs. Twenty-three percent of IDPs in Bani Walid and 18 percent in Awbari have been displaced for
six months or less. The findings show that the longer the IDPs have had to establish themselves in a new area,
the less food insecure they are.

Figure 29: Food security by displacement time
8% 7% 4%
11%
12% 19% 20%
17%
Severely Foof Insecure
64% 61%
Moderately Food Insecure
60%
68%
Marginally Food Secure
Food Secure
15% 15% 15%
5%
0-6 months 6-12 12-24 > 24
months months

10.3 Socio-economic situation
Severely food insecure households have limited access to stable income compared to other groups. As such 43
percent of severely food insecure households rely on casual labor as the main income source, while the most
common income source for other groups is the state salary. A relatively high proportion of severely food insecure
(16 %) thus also rely on kinship and gifts from family and friends as the main source of income. In order to cope
with the unstable income, severely food insecure households adopt a number of consumption based coping
strategies with more than 8 out of 10 households eating less preferred / expensive foods, borrowing food or
relying on help from friends and relatives, as well as limiting portion sizes. This compares to food secure
households were less than one third of the households use any of these coping strategies.

Page 35 of 49
Figure 30: Households food security by main sources of income and use of consumption-based coping
strategies
10% 7% Other
12% 12%
6% 4% 16%
7% 8% 15% Kinship/gifts from
2% 5% family/friends/remi
3% 5%
6% ttances
12% Petty trade/small
20%
business
20%
20% 43% Skilled labour
Casual labour
52%
47%
39% Salaried work
29%
Food Secure Marginally Food Moderately Severely Food

Secure Food Insecure Insecure
Rely on cheaper food

82% 82% 82%
Borrowed food 75% 77% 79%
71% 70%
Limited meals
61% 61% 61%
56%
Restrict consumption by 52% 50%
adults 49%
33%
30%
21% 19%
18%
Food Secure Marginally Food Secure Moderately Food Insecure Severely Food Insecure
Table 3: CARI Classification of IDP households

IDP groups Food insecure Food secure
Male 22% 78%
Head of Household
Female 40% 60%
Benghazi 8% 92%
Displacement groups Wadi al Hayaa / Awbari 60% 40%
(IDPs place of origin) Sirte 25% 75%
Tawergha 27% 73%
0-6 months 27% 73%
Duration of displacement
6-12 months 20% 80%
Page 36 of 49
12-24 months 26% 74%
>24 months 24% 76%
Employed 14% 86%
Employment status
Not employed 49% 51%
Near (0-175 km) 17% 83%
Distance to place of Short (176 - 350 km) 27% 73%
origin Medium (351 - 700 km) 19% 81%
Long (+700 km) 35% 65%
OVERALL 24% 76%

Among the IDPs surveyed, four distinct clusters of IDP groups stand out when applying a two-step cluster
statistical analysis.
• The first group, which makes up almost half of the IDPs (39%) consists of employed male heads of
households, who has only been displaced for a short period and has not been displaced far from their
place of origin. This group seems to the least food insecure group, as only 15% are found to food
insecure.
• The second group (13% of IDPs) consist of employed male heads of households, who has been displaced
for an extended period and are located far from their place of origin. This group is also not a very food
insecure group, as only 16% are found to food insecure.
• The third group, making up 12% of the IDPs, are unemployed female heads of medium sized households.
This group has a medium time of displacement and distance to place of origin. Amon the cluster groups,
this group, is the least food secure, with almost a third (41%) being food insecure.
• The fourth and final group (36% of all IDPs) consists of unemployed male heads of large households.
These are displaced a medium distance from their place of origin and have been so for a long time. A
third of these group is food insecure, making it the second most insecure cluster group.

Page 37 of 49
Figure 31: Cluster Analysis of Most Vulnerable IDP Groups
Unemployed women, and unemployed male heads of

large household most vulnerable IDP groups
Share of food insecure
Group characteristics Share of IPDs
in group
Group 1: Employed Male head of Medium size 15%

household. Short period of displacement, Short 39%
distance from place of origin
Group 2: Employed Male head of Medium size 13% 16%

household. Long period of displacement, Long
Group 3: Unemployed Female head of Medium 12%

size household. Medium time period displaced, 41%
short distance from place of origin
+6 Group 4: Unemployed Male head of Large size

36% 33%
household. Long period of displacement, medium
© 2016 Voluntas Advisory. All rights reserved. Strictly Confidential.
Page 38 of 49
11 Conclusion

As the conflict continues in Libya blocking prospects for revitalising state institutions and stabilising the economy,
the rival governments’ ability to deliver concrete improvement in the lives of Libyans is decreasing, while the risk
of further violence increases. Entire cities’ neighbourhoods have been destroyed, hundreds of thousands of
Libyans have been displaced, the local currency have devaluated and inflation is spiking leading to increasing
food prices and suspension of the regular subsidies by the government.

The Rapid Food Security Assessment of IDPs in Libya found that the continuing deterioration of security and
economic situation are putting immense strains on IDPs in several areas in Libya. From 2015 to 2016, overall IDP
food insecurity has increased, 24 percent of all IDPs are food insecure, compared to 6 percent food insecure in
2015. Overall, the situation in Bani Walid is the most pressing, where IDPs are displaced due to clashes between
forces from the eastern and western regions, and the fight against the Islamic State in Sirte face severe
humanitarian challenges. In Bani Walid, 24 percent of IDPs are found to be severely food insecure and 43 percent
of the IDPs in the Western city eats less than three meals per day. Furthermore, female-headed IDP households
are more food insecure than the male-headed ones. Also, IDPs seem to be most insecure right after their
displacement, as they have yet been able to create livelihood potentials.

The effect of decreased disposable income has had a significant impact on IDPs food security who are already
affected by restricted access to livelihoods. Due to limited banking functionality households do not have access
to their salaries and savings and they are not able to access funds necessary to pay for their needs, including food
and accommodation. Currently, almost half of IDP expenditures are directed towards food, though this varies
considerably across cities. Food insecure and vulnerable households cope through adapting various coping
strategies.
The frequent use of livelihood coping strategies, especially crisis and emergency coping, call for immediate action
by humanitarian communities to mitigate a further deterioration of food security situation among the most
vulnerable.

11.1 Recommendations
• Identify local partners that can help provide and scale-up food assistance in Bani Walid to address IDPs
escalating food security crisis in the city;
• Increase efforts to reach vulnerable IDP households especially female-headed households, for instance
through training of local partners to identify and profile IDP households;
• Set-up food price monitoring system to enable on-going monitoring of food price inflation in key
markets;
• Develop contingency plans for other conflict areas at risk of localized surge of displacement, as was seen
with the Sirte displacement;
• Consider engaging with the Libyan government on providing targeted food subsidies in areas hosting
high number of IDPs.

Page 39 of 49
12 Annex 1 - CARI calculations
The CARI methodology is a food security assessment tool aiming to estimate the actual number of food insecure
households in a target population. It is suitable for national and sub-national assessments and specific locations,
such as refugee settlements. CARI is not appropriate for qualitative assessments that are solely based on key-
informant interviews and focus group discussions and therefore only IDPs and Returnees have been included in
the calculations.
The CARI methodology includes the following domains, sub-domains, and indicators.

Table 4: CARI model
Domain Consoles Indicator
Current status Food consumption Food consumption score
Food energy shortfall
Coping capacity Economic vulnerability Food expenditure share
Poverty status
Asset depletion Livelihood coping strategies
categories

The 4-point scale assigns a score to each indicator:
• A score of 1 is seen as food secure: a household can meet essential food and non-food needs without
engaging in atypical coping strategies.
• A score of 2 means marginally food secure: a household has minimally adequate food consumption
without engaging in irreversible coping strategies but is unable to afford some essential non-food
expenditures.
• A score of 3 is seen as moderate food insecure, whereby a family has significant food consumption gaps
or is marginally able to meet minimum food needs only with irreversible coping strategies.
• A score of 4 indicates a household is severely food insecure, and thus faces extreme food consumption
gaps, or has severe loss of livelihood assets will lead to food consumption gaps or worse.
The overall food security classification is calculated in four steps by first averaging the household’s 4-point scale
scores for available indicators in the current status domain (CS). Next, the summary indicator of coping capacity
is calculated next by averaging the household’s console scores for available indicators in the coping capacity
domain (CC). Thirdly, the CS and CC score are averaged ((CS+CC)/2). This average is then rounded to the nearest
whole number and will always fall between 1 and 4. The number thus represents the household’s overall food
security outcome.

To calculate what percentage of the population is food insecure, the rates of the two most severe categories
(moderately food insecure and severely food insecure) are summed.
In this assessment, the following three indicators have been included:
• Food consumption score
• Food expenditure share
• Livelihood coping strategies categories
Food consumption scores

Food consumption scores (FCS) measure current food consumption. Households are allocated into groups based
on the variety of foods consumed in the week before being surveyed. The survey included the following food
groups largely following the WFP Technical Guidance for Food Consumption Analysis:

Table 5: Food items table from household survey
Food items Food groups Weight

1. Cereals and Grain: Main staples 2
Page 40 of 49
Wheat bread (flour for home bakery), Rye Bread,
Buckwheat, Pasta, Rice
2. Roots and tubers:
Potato, Beetroot
3. Legumes / nuts:
Pulses 3
Beans, Peas/canned peas, other nuts
4. Orange vegetables (Veg. rich in Vitamin A):
Carrot, Red Pepper, Pumpkin
5. Green leafy vegetables: Spinach/Sour dock Vegetables 1
6. Other vegetables:
Onion, Cabbage, Tomatoes/Cucumbers, Zucchini
7. Orange fruits (Fruits rich in Vitamin A): Apricot,
Peach, Orange
Fruits 1
8. Other Fruits: Apple, Pear, Plums, Lemon

9. Meat:
Chicken, Beef
10. Liver, kidney, heart and / or other organ meats:
Liver Meat and fish 4
Fish / Shellfish: Canned tuna, Canned sardines,
11.
River fish
12. Eggs
13. Milk and other dairy products: Fresh Milk, Cheese,
Milk 4
Sour cream, Fuli (Kefir)/yoghurt
14. Oil / fat / butter:
Sunflower oil, Butter, Lard, Margarine Oil 0,5
15. Sugar: Sugar, Cakes/sweets/cookies, Jam, Honey Sugar 0,5
Condiments / Spices: Tea, coffee/cocoa, salt, garlic,
spices, yeast/baking powder, lanwin, tomato/sauce,

meat or fish as a condiment, condiments including
16. Condiments 0
small amount of milk/tea coffee, and herbs or small

quantity of leafy vegetables like parsley and
coriander

For each food item, the number of days that the respondent has eaten the item within the last seven days is
recorded. For each food group, the sum of days is calculated – scores above seven are coded as 7. Each food
group score is then multiplied by its weight and the weighted scores summarized which equals the food
consumption score.

As there is a high use of oil and sugar among IDPs, the adjusted thresholds have been utilized for this study. They
are as follows:
•Poor: 0-28
•Borderline 28,5-42
•Acceptable >42

To convert the FCS into the CARI scale, adequate food consumption households are converted to food secure
and assigned a score of 1. Borderline food consumption households are converted to moderate food insecure
and assigned a score of 3. Poor food consumption households are converted to severe food insecure and assigned
a score of 4. No household will be classified as marginal food insecure.

Food expenditure share
Page 41 of 49
Food cost share measures economic vulnerability. Households are categorized based on the share of total
expenditures directed to food. It is used when poverty line information is not available and relies on the premise
that the greater the importance of food within a household’s overall budget compared to other consumed items
and services, the more economically vulnerable the household is.

In this study, the food cost share has been calculated by asking respondents what their three main expenditures
are and what share of their income is spend on each of these three. Another approach, which has not been
utilized in this study, is by dividing the total food expenditures by the total household expenditures.

Converting the expenditure share into the CARI 4-point scale is usually based on the following thresholds for
expenditures used to acquire food commodities:
• < 50 % of expenditure = Food secure
• 50 – 65 % of expenditure = Marginally food secure
• 65 – 75 % of expenditure = Moderately food insecure
• > 75 % = Severely food insecure
Livelihood coping strategies

Livelihood coping strategies measure the sustainability of livelihoods and are a descriptor of a household’s coping
capacity. Households are categorized based on the severity of livelihood coping strategies employed. The
indicator is derived from a series of questions regarding the household’s experience with livelihood stress and
asset depletion during 30 days before the survey. All strategies are classified into three broad groups, including
stress, crisis, and emergency strategies.

Table 6: Coping strategy activities table from household survey
During the past 30 days, did anyone in your household have to engage in any following Coping strategy
behaviors due to a lack of food or a lack of money to buy food? category
Stress
1. Sold household assets/goods (radio, furniture, refrigerator, television, jewelry, etc.)
Crisis
2. Reduced non-food expenses on health (including drugs) and education
Crisis
3. Sold productive assets or means of transport (sewing machine, wheelbarrow,
bicycle, car, etc.)
4. Spent savings Stress
Stress
5. Borrowed money / food from a formal lender / bank
Stress
6. Purchased food on credit or borrowed food
7. Sold house or land Emergency
8. Withdrew children from school Crisis
9. Begging Emergency

For each coping activity, respondents were asked if they had done the activity within the last 30 days. If they had
not, respondents received follow-up questions on whether it was because they had already done it (e.g. already
sold their house more than 30 days ago) or because they had not had to do it to cope.

Based on these three answering categories a dichotomous variable was developed with respondents that had
performed the activity within the last 30 days as well as the respondents that had previously performed the
activity as one group and the other group that had not had to do the activity.

The coping strategies are hierarchally ranked in the following manner:
1. Emergency
2. Crisis
3. Stress
Page 42 of 49
This means that if a respondent has performed both an activity within the stress coping category and activity
within the crisis coping category, the respondent will be recorded within the crisis coping category.

The coping strategy categories are subsequently translated into the CARI 4 point scale in the following manner:
• No coping strategy (i.e. not performed any activities) = Food secure
• Stress coping strategy (performed stress activity, but neither crisis nor emergency activity) = Marginally
food secure
• Crisis coping strategy (performed at least one crisis activity, but not emergency activity) = Moderately
food insecure
• Emergency coping strategy (performed at least one emergency activity) = Food insecure

Page 43 of 49
13 Annex 2: CARI Consoles by location and region
Tripoli
Domain Indicator Severely

Marginally Moderately
Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
Asset Depletion coping strategy 5% 12% 51% 32%
categories
6% 75% 19% 0%
Food Security Index
81% 19%

Zawiyah

Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
41% 55% 4% 0%
Food Security Index
96% 4%

Bani Walid

Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Page 44 of 49
Share of
Economic
expenditure on 1% 16% 20& 63%
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
0% 42% 34% 24%
Food Security Index
42% 58%

Ajdabiyah

Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
18% 64% 16% 2%
Food Security Index
82% 18%

Benghazi

Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
18% 65% 13% 4%
Food Security Index
83% 17%

Tobruk
Domain Indicator Food secure Food insecure
Page 45 of 49
Severely
Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
15% 85% 9% 0%
Food Security Index
100% 0%

Awbari

Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
37% 42% 20% 1%
Food Security Index
79% 21%

Sabha

Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
Page 46 of 49
41% 51% 8% 0%
Food Security Index
92% 8%

CARI Scores by region
West

Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
7% 58% 24% 11%
Food Security Index
65% 35%

East

Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
18% 67% 12% 3%
Food Security Index
85% 15%

South

Food Food
Food Secure Food
Secure (1) Insecure
(2) Insecure (3)
(4)
Page 47 of 49
Food
Current Food
Status Consumption
Group
Share of
Economic
Vulnerability
Coping food
Capacity Livelihood
categories
39% 47% 13% 1%
Food Security Index
86% 14%

Page 48 of 49

14 Bibliography

Al Jazeera (2016): “Haftar forces suffer losses in Libya fighting (28 July 2016)”, available at:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/haftar-forces-suffer-losses-libya-fighting-160728063021013.html

Danish Refugee Council (2016): “Assessment Report WASH Situation in Sabha Municipality, Southern Libya July
2016”, available at
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/assessments/wash_situa
tion_report_drc_sabha.pdf

The Guardian (2016): “Battle of the banknotes as rival currencies are set to be issued in Libya,” available at
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/20/battle-of-the-banknotes-rival-currencies-libya

IOM (2016) “Displacement Tracking Matrix”, available at: http://www.globaldtm.info/

IOM (2016): “Situation Report for August 2016 – Libya Humanitarian Support to Migrants and IDPs”, available
at:http://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/situation_reports/file/sitrep-Libya-August2016.pdf

IOM (2016): “Press release May 2016: Over 417,000 Internally Displaced in Libya: IOM Report”, available at
https://www.iom.int/news/over-417000-internally-displaced-libya-iom-report

Libya Herald (2016): “Libyan dinar continues to crash as it breaks 5-dinar mark against the dollar (19. July 2016)”,
available at https://www.libyaherald.com/2016/07/20/libyan-dinar-continues-to-crash-as-it-breaks-5-dinar-
mark-against-the-dollar/

Libya News Agency (2016): “IRCC and LRC distribute aid to displaced people in Tripoli, Misrata and Tobruk (13-
02-2016)”, available at http://www.lana-
news.ly/eng/news/view/94764/IRCC_and_LRC_distribute_aid_to_displaces_people_in_Tripoli_Misrata_and_T
obruk

OCHA (2016): “Humanitarian Bulletin, June 2016, Libya”, issue 4, available at
http://unsmil.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Hf5NUBDjJBI%3D&tabid=3543&mid=6187&language=en
-US

REACH (2016): “Multi-Sector Needs Assessment III Libya Report June 2016”, available at:
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/reach.pdf

REACH (2016): “Rapid IDP Protection Needs Assessment – Sirte Displacement – West Libya Report May 2016”,
available at
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/final_rapid_idp_protection_needs_assessment_report_
may_2016.pdf

Tarhouni, Adam (2016): “Op-Ed: Fear, uncertainty, risk and Libya’s currency black market (1 July 2016)”, Available
at https://www.libyaherald.com/2016/07/21/op-ed-fear-uncertainty-risk-and-libyas-black-market/

UNICEF (2016): “UNICEF Humanitarian Appeal for Libya,” available at
http://www.unicef.org/appeals/files/HAC_2016_Libya.pdf

UNHCR (2006): “Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons.”

World Bank (2016): “Libya’s Economic Outlook – October 2016”, available at
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/282581475460786200/Libya-MEM-Fall-2016-ENG.pdf
Page 49 of 49

WFP-Libya Rapid Food Security Assessment Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

WFP-Libya Rapid Food Security Assessment Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WFP-Libya Rapid Food Security Assessment Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rapid

Food Security Assessment, Libya

11 Libya Interagency Rapid Assessment, December 2014.

Map 2: Sample Distribution in Libya

Overall Rank IDP IDP Share of

1 Benghazi 10,346 59,696 16% Zawiyah 100

8 Tobruk 2,306 14,133 4% 137

9 Janzour (Tripoli) 1,950 11,012 3% Awbari

15 Az Zawiyah 893 4,715 1%

18 Sabha 740 5,136 1%

22 Awbari + Ghurayfah 641 4,478 1%

*Adjusted numbers for data collection locations based on

Head of Household Number of Persons in IDP Households

Time in current area Main reason for displacement

Political conflict Religious conflict

Current Employment Status Reasons for unemployment

5% Other (please specify)

State salary is the main income source for 42 % of IDPs and

Average contribution to income

14 REACH Rapid IDP Protection Needs Assessment, May 2016

Income situation compared to before May 2014 Main Income Challenges

About the same No/lack of

44% Low wage/salary

56% 61% 62% 63%

47% 45% 48%

Tripoli Zawiyah Bani Walid Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari

Expenditure Shares Shares of expenditures spend on food

Figure 9: Average share of expenditure on food by regions and by locations

South West East

<75% spent on food

65% - <75% spent on food

50%- <65% spent on food

<50% spent on food

Figure 11: Expenditure development and income comparison

Government UN agencies NGOs CBOs Religious Community Local tribe Family /

Food secure Food insecure

Moderately food Significant food consumption gaps, OR marginally able to Moderatel

Food secure Adequate food consumption without engaging in typical Food

Figure 15: Food Consumption Score by regions and location

South West East

Acceptable Borderline Poor

100% 98% 96% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 100%

Tripoli Zawiyah Bani Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari2016

Acceptable Borderline Poor

Acceptable Borderline Poor

Male HH Female HH Average # of days

Three or more meals Two or less meals

Figure 18: Food sources

17 FAO, GIEWS Country Brief, November 2016.

Tripoli Zawiyah Bani Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari

Market purchase (cash) Market purchase (credit) Food aid Other

Tripoli Zawiyah Bani Walid Ajdabiyah Benghazi Tobruk Sabha Awbari

2016 26% 20% 40% 14%

No coping Stress Coping Crisis Coping Emergency coping

South West East

No coping Stress Coping

No coping Stress Coping Crisis Coping Emergency coping

36% 26% 33%