Executive Summary
With the Syrian crisis now in its sixth year, the humanitarian situation across the country continues to deteriorate. Since March 2011, violence in Syria has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and resulted in more than 11 million people – over half of the population - fleeing their homes.
Approximately 4.8 million Syrians have taken refuge in the region, most notably Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and North Africa. As of December 2015, out of a population of around 18 million, 6.5 million people were estimated to be internally displaced. A deep economic recession, depreciating national currency, soaring food and fuel prices, disrupted markets, and food insecurity continue to contribute to extreme vulnerability throughout the country.
To better understand pressures on food security and livelihoods and to support strategic planning for interventions, the Food Security Cluster in Gaziantep, Turkey commissioned a Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment that was carried out between December 2015 and February 2016. The assessment drew upon several methods of primary data collection, including householdlevel interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs).
A total of 1,995 household surveys were conducted in 150 randomly selected communities across eight geographic clusters throughout Syria. Clusters were identified on the basis of geographic proximity of communities to one another as well as shared socio-economic and livelihoods characteristics. The survey design process was guided by the findings of previously conducted livelihoods and agriculture FGDs, which also informed the subsequent analysis. Household survey data was cross-checked against secondary data sources as well as information from key informants in order to contextualize the findings.
Livelihoods
The results indicate that livelihoods have experienced severe strain as a result of the conflict. More than half of households reported that their main sources of income are different than before the crisis and a large majority (80%) reported a severe decline in income in the year prior to the assessment. Salaried employment, work in skilled trades, and government jobs have largely disappeared in many areas of the country, forcing households to take low-skill and/or high-risk jobs. There has been dramatic growth in jobs such as processing fuel and collecting firewood as well as in remittances. Many households have come to also depend on agricultural wage labour, despite the fact that farmers are increasingly unable to pay for assistance to plant or harvest. Accordingly, most households interviewed did not have sufficient income to meet their needs, with strains being felt most acutely during the winter months. Many have had to take jobs that are less stable than the ones they held previously and have had to resort to taking on debt and relying on coping strategies in order to make ends meet.
In light of these challenges, there is a need to provide livelihoods-supporting assistance across the entire value chain. The rapid growth of high-risk and low-skill jobs, including ones focused on short-term resource exploitation makes support for livelihoods a priority. Cash-for-work activities focused on improving and repairing agricultural infrastructure would not only provide households with incomes but help ensure the long-term viability of the sector as a whole. Microfinance initiatives may help households to replace lost livelihoods with new incomegenerating opportunities and support households dependent upon skilled trades or farming to restore productive assets. As they have lower access to income-generating opportunities, women and female-headed households should be specifically targeted as should youth at risk of joining armed groups. With levels of income falling and costs rising during the winter months, assistance should take into account seasonal variations.
Food Security
Livelihoods pressures have had a significant effect on household food security. The vast majority of the households interviewed accessed food from markets, and their diminished purchasing power has forced them to cut back on the quality and quantity of the food they consume. While a majority of households were found to be food secure at the time they were interviewed, many were at risk of food insecurity, based on the types of foods they reported consuming as well as a widespread use of coping mechanisms. Overall, households reported low levels of hunger but a dependence upon foods that were high in energy and low in nutrients. While most reported access to markets that stocked most essential food commodities, isolated shortages and reports that many food items are often difficult to obtain may make obtaining food a challenge for households even when they have the means to afford it. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of households reported that they were in need of humanitarian food assistance. Overall, there is a need to promote and encourage food production on a local level. One means to do this is through the use of cash and vouchers, which reinforces how most households already access food while supporting local producers and sellers. Given that many of the households reported relatively high levels of market functionality (albeit with challenges related to specific commodities), careful monitoring systems must be in place to understand when markets stop functioning. Furthermore, even when markets are functional, vulnerable populations, including female-headed households, may require in-kind assistance. Promoting households’ engagement in agriculture, whether it is for income generation or consumption, may make important contributions as well.
Agriculture
A majority of households interviewed for this assessment lived in rural areas and were engaged in agriculture as a source of income generation or food production. Households engaged in crop or livestock production typically reported higher indicators associated with livelihoods and food security. They also reported scaling back their engagement in agriculture over the past two years and approximately 15% had stopped altogether. Difficulties obtaining or affording inputs were the main reasons for households to stop or scale back their production, but at the same time, changes in value chains make it increasingly unprofitable for households to remain engaged in agriculture. In an effort to continue farming, households have changed the ways they use land, abandoned precrisis/traditional agricultural practices, and shifted to planting more profitable non-food crops. Many households reported liquidating their herds and flocks and selling trees for firewood.
The challenges facing the agricultural sector in Syria are immense, but addressing the toll the conflict has taken on pre-crisis support systems may be the first step in encouraging agricultural production. This includes providing technical and extension services, seeds, fertilizers, veterinary support and the rehabilitation of irrigation systems. Restoring value chains is also crucial and entails restoring infrastructure and production facilities. While households’ practices have changed, finding ways to increase the productivity of their current holdings may help ease pressures on livelihoods until access to land, inputs and services have improved. Encouraging forms of agriculture that had not been used previously in some areas, such as greenhouses, may also enhance production and provide employment during winter months.