Multi Sectoral Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) of

Senegalese Refugees in the Foni Districts of The Gambia

July 2013

Data collected:

November 2012

Authors:

Gambia Commission for Refugees, National Nutrition Agency, Ministry

of Health and Social Welfare, Gambia Bureau of Statistics, Department

of Water Resources, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, World Food

Programme, UN Children’s Fund, World Health Organization, Gambia

Red Cross Society, Gambia Food and Nutrition Association and

Concern Universal

2

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge all persons who made this assessment and its report possible, especially the

heads of the two lead agencies: the UNHCR Head of Office, Mr. Sekou K. Saho, and the WFP Country

Director, Ms Vitoria Ginja. We would like to thank the WFP lead consultant, Mr. Darko Petrovic, for the

great amount of time and energy he has devoted to the work of the 2012 JAM assessment, especially the

realisation of this report.

We would like to acknowledge the members of the Technical Working Group (TWG) for their continuous

contribution to the work of this assessment, all listed under Annex D. Particular acknowledgement and

appreciation goes to all the enumerators, field workers, team leaders and data processors for their tireless

efforts and sacrifice in collecting quality data in a challenging, fast paced and resource limited environment.

Special acknowledgement goes to the refugee and host families, refugee leaders, community development

workers and community leaders for their patience, commitment and kindness in creating a work friendly

environment and enabling a smooth realisation of this assessment.

The 2012 JAM has been made possible by the collaborative effort of 12 partners from the Government of

The Gambia, United Nations System and NGO community in the country, namely: Gambia Commission for

Refugees, National Nutrition Agency, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Gambia Bureau of Statistics,

Department of Water Resources, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, World Food Programme, UN

Children’s Fund, World Health Organization, Gambia Red Cross Society, Gambia Food and Nutrition

Association and Concern Universal.

A special tribute is extended in honour of Mr. Katim Nget, Programme Manager at the Gambia Red Cross

Society, who passed away on Saturday, 27 July 2013 shortly before the publication of this report. Katim has

been a true professional and devout humanitarian worker who was passionately committed to the plight of

Casamance Refugees throughout the period of 2006 – 2013. May his soul rest in eternal peace.

3

Table of Contents Page

Acknowledgements 2

Acronyms 4

List of Tables and Charts 5

Executive Summary 7

1. Introduction 12

2. Background and Rationale 14

3. Methodology 16

4. Main Findings 19

Section 1: Demography 19

Section 2: Food Security 26

a) Vulnerability and External Shocks 27

b) Food Availability, Food Access, Food Utilization and Coping 31

c) Self-Reliance 40

Section 3: Health and Nutrition 51

Section 4: Water and Sanitation 60

Section 5: Shelter 65

Section 6: Education 70

Section 7: Protection 73

5. References 77

Annex A – Detailed Tables and Charts

Annex B – Draft Joint Plan of Action

Annex C – Terms of Reference

Annex D – Members of Technical Working Group and Assessment Teams

Annex E – Questionnaires

4

Acronyms

BMI – Body Mass Index

CFSVA – Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment

CRR – Central River Region

EU – European Union

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization

GAFNA – The Gambia Food and Nutrition Security Association

GAM – Global Acute Malnutrition

GBOS – Gambia Bureau of Statistics

GFD – General Food Distribution

GRCS – Gambia Red Cross Society

GNNSP – The Gambia National Nutrition Surveillance Programme

LRR – Lower River Region

MAM – Moderate Acute Malnutrition

MFDC – Movement des Forces Democratiques de Casamance

MUAC – Mid-Upper Arm Circumference

NaNA – National Nutrition Agency

NBR – North Bank Region

NDMA – National Disaster Management Agency

OCHA – Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

SAM – Severe Acute Malnutrition

SGBV – Sexual and Gender based Violence

SMART – Standard Monitoring and Relief in Transitions

TWG – Technical Working Group

UNFPA – United Nations Population Fund

UNHCR – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund

URR – Upper River Region

USAID – United States Agency for International Development

VAM – Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping

VDC – Village Development Committee

WCR – West Coast Region

WFP – World Food Programme

WHO – World Health Organization

5

List of Tables and Charts

Section 1: Demography

Table 1: Number and distribution of refugee households per district, comparison of planning and actual figures

Table 2: Number and distribution of refugee population per district, comparison of planning and actual figures

Figure 1: Distribution of registered refugee population per rural districts

Figure 2: Refugee households, actual presence vs. expected

Figure 3: Refugee population, actual presence vs. expected

Figure 4: Village distribution of new refugee population, actual presence vs. expected

Figure 5: Share of refugee population / year of arrival

Figure 6: Gender of refugee population / year of arrival

Figure 7: Gender of refugee population / age group

Figure 8: Number and distribution of refugee population / age group

Figure 9: Level of education of household head

Section 2: Food Security

a) Vulnerability and External Shocks

Map 1: Proportion of district population suffering from moderate or severe food insecurity, January 2011

Figure 10: Food Security Classification

Map 2: Districts seriously affected by drop in crop production in 2011/2012, January 2012

Figure 11: Availability of household food stocks within 25 districts seriously affected by 2011 crop failure, March 2012

Figure 12: Development of rice prices in The Gambia (2008 - 2012)

b) Food Availability, Food Access, Food Utilization and Coping

Figure 13: Proportion of annual domestic cereal requirements covered by national cereal production

Figure 14: Period of availability of self-grown cereal stocks for own consumption following harvest in 2011/12

Figure 15: Annual refugee household income

Figure 16: Proportion of refugee population engaged in income generation, as per primary economic activity

Figure 17: Share of households who devote share of expenditure to food

Figure 18: Classification according to Food Consumption Groups

Figure 19: Dietary Diversity

Figure 20: Dietary Intake by consumption frequency of food groups with particular nutritional values

Figure 21: Type of coping strategies employed

c) Self-Reliance

Box 1: Summary of key shortcomings of 2009 FFW activities

Box 2: Snapshot of other livelihood interventions and type of support provided

Figure 22: Access and ownership of land for livelihoods activities

Figure 23: Share of households engaged in horticulture and/or crop production per number of fields under cultivation

6

Figure 24: Ownership of livestock by district

Figure 25: Ownership of livestock by type of animal

Figure 26: Proportion of households owning livestock, by type and number of animals owned

Figure 27: Ownership of productive assets and other household items

Section 3: Health and Nutrition

Figure 28: Trends of acute Malnutrition in The Gambia, 2007 - 2012

Figure 29: Prevalence of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM), wasting among children aged 6-59 months

Figure 30: Prevalence of Stunting, children aged 6 - 59 months (for WCR and Gambia aged 0 – 59 months)

Figure 31: Prevalence of underweight, children aged 6 - 59 months (for WCR and Gambia aged 0 – 59 months)

Figure 32: Rate of coverage of major preventive health interventions, 2007 - 2008

Figure 33: Women access to disease preventive services, 2012

Figure 34: Pregnancy status of women in reproductive age

Figure 35: Proportion of infants and children undergoing breast and complementary feeding, 2007 - 2008

Figure 36: Hand washing practices of refugee women in reproductive age, 2012

Figure 37: Incidence of infections and disease among refugee children aged 6-59, 2007 – 2008 and 2012

Figure 38: Access to basic health services

Figure 39: Level of education of refugee mothers, 2012

Section 4: Water and Sanitation

Figure 40: Does the water source meet your daily household needs for water? (Cooking, drinking and washing)

Figure 41: Main reasons why water needs are unmet

Figure 42: Proportion of households with unprotected water sources, 2007-12

Figure 43: Type of water sources used

Figure 44: Type of toilet facility used by refugee households

Figure 45: Main source of lightning for households

Section 5: Shelter

Figure 46: Trend in tenure status of refugee households, 2008 – 2012

Figure 47: Tenure status in 2012

Figure 48: Proportion of households with access to and ownership of land for housing

Figure 49: Major material of the wall

Figure 50: Major material of the floor

Figure 51: Major material of the roof

Section 6: Education

Figure 52: Breakdown of refugee children in- and out of school, per district (2012)

Section 7: Protection

Figure 53: Share of ID Coverage / arrival year

Figure 54: Land access and ownership

7

Executive Summary

In 2011, following deficient, erratic and unevenly distributed rainfall The Gambia experienced a severe crop

failure with harvest losses averaging 60-90% in most seriously affected areas, while putting at existential

risk small-holder farmers and vulnerable households throughout the country. At a scale unseen since 1980,

it triggered an emergency declaration and an appeal for international assistance by the Government of The

Gambia in March 2012. The Government, UN agencies and NGOs present in the country immediately

mobilized emergency assistance in the form of food and non-food support to be provided during the

months of May – November 2012.

Even though nearly 230,000 people benefited throughout most of the districts seriously affected by the

crop failure, assistance was neither specifically directed to Casamance refugees nor were logistical

arrangements put in place that would enable the refugee households to access relevant assistance

schemes, such as national food and seed distributions or targeted nutrition interventions, despite identical

exposure to food insecurity and a comparatively higher vulnerability profile.

The fifth Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) of Casamance refugees in The Gambia took place in the context of

the then on-going emergency operation. With data collection conducted in November 2012 it was the first

JAM that was undertaken since November 2009, which at the time resulted in the phase out of food based

assistance to refugee households and the gradual introduction of livelihood based support in favour of their

increased self-reliance.

The overall objectives of this JAM were to assess the food security and vulnerability situation of the

Casamance refugees registered in the rural districts of Foni Berefet, Foni Bintang and Foni Kansala and

analyse the extent to which the drought and the resultant crop failure have led to food insecurity and

undermined livelihood projects implemented since 2010. The assessment is also meant to help determine

the appropriate response framework for 2013-2014 and provide a solid basis for resource mobilisation

efforts by the Government and partners in the future.

The findings of this JAM are based on a comprehensive household survey on food security and nutrition

and related vulnerability indicators, an extensive review of secondary sources compiled by UNHCR, WFP

and other partners as well as first-hand information gathered through focus group discussions and key

informant interviews in the field. Contrary to previous assessments, the current JAM laid strong emphasis

on the collection of primary data from a representative sample of refugee households, to address the

chronic lack of reliable and up-to-date information on the food security and nutrition situation of

Casamance refugees. Primary data has been triangulated with information obtained from available

secondary sources, including the past JAM reports.

This assessment has been conducted in accordance with the WFP JAM Report Quality Monitoring Matrix.

Summary of main findings

Demography:

The number of refugees in the registration database often does not match with the actual number of

refugees living in the respective settlements, despite major improvements in household registration

methodology. The current JAM found that of the 1,075 households expected in 52 communities under

8

assessment, only 496 households have been still present, representing a drop of nearly 54%. Out of the

total refugee population of 7,202 expected in these households, household listing could establish the

presence of 4,793 people (67% of expected total).

The spontaneous nature of refugee movement and the permeability of the Gambian-Senegalese border

inhibit effective household tracking and the establishment of credible figures on the total refugee

population. Based on the comprehensive village coverage, the average prevalence of household

absenteeism and typical family size, the current assessment estimates a minimum of 5,600 people still

living in Senegalese refugee households in the rural areas of The Gambia. The negative impact of the crop

failure and the pursuit of livelihood opportunities seem to be the main reasons for refugee households to

leave their community of registration in favour of a return to Casamance or a migration to other

communities in The Gambia. Both migratory patterns remain currently unrecorded and hardly quantifiable.

Food security:

Only 16% of refugee households can be considered as food secure while 84% show some form of food

insecurity and vulnerability. Nearly half of the households (45%) are able to meet only minimally adequate

food consumption needs (2,100 kcal per person/day) without engaging in irreversible coping strategies that

would undermine their livelihood base. The proportion of the refugee population experiencing moderate or

severe food insecurity and/or engaging in damaging coping strategies is at alarming 39%.

The high level of moderate and severe food insecurity among refugees can be explained by multiple

factors, including constantly low food availability, highly constrained production capacity, endemic poverty

and low asset ownership and the overall limited impact of food and livelihood interventions. External

shocks that were experienced recently, such as a countrywide crop failure and rising food prices have

played a pivotal role in exacerbating the refugee households’ level of vulnerability and undermining their

food access and coping capacity.

Household poverty among the refugees is high, endemic and reflective of low asset ownership and limited

productive capacity, with household food production usually lasting less than three months. Income

opportunities remain very limited for the majority of households who remain engaged primarily in

agriculture based, low income or vulnerable employment, while the majority of households (57%) do not

have access to credit / loans in times of need.

More than every third household (38%) devotes 75% of their expenditure to food only, well above the

national average (58% of expenditure devoted to food), reflecting the high state of moderate or severe

food insecurity and a poor diversity of diet. Nearly half of refugee households have either poor (22%) or

borderline (27%) food consumption, suggesting an inadequate or minimally adequate intake of food in

terms of quantity, regularity and quality of diet. Refugee households have a primarily energy based diet

with a high level of nutrient and vitamin deficiency prevalent across the entire refugee population,

irrespective of overall food consumption.

To remedy food deficiency at household level, almost 70% of the households are engaged in coping

strategies that actually undermine their livelihood base and future productive capacity. The direct

perception of food security among refugees is high, with 60-70% of households reporting that family

members go to bed hungry or cannot be provided with sufficient food on a regular basis.

9

Self-Reliance

Although ambitious in scope, asset creation and livelihood activities put in place between 2009 and 2012

had only a limited impact in enhancing refugee self-reliance and local integration. Chronic resource

limitations, coupled with incomplete household coverage, delays in the implementation of several activities

and insufficient coordination between key partners meant that the potential towards creating sustainable

livelihoods was very limited and could hardly compensate for the phase out of food assistance or food

based livelihood activities in 2009.

The level of assistance geared towards the enhancement of crop production in the form of seeds, tools and

particularly draught animals seems to be inadequate given over usage and high mortality of donkeys (15%),

low overall farming potential (1-2 plots of less than a hectare per household) and limited quality and

consumption availability of own produce (1-3 months of consumption) applicable to most refugee

households. The self-reliance potential was further eroded by a crop failure and rising food prices in 2011-

2012.

Access to land for farming is still not universal (85%) and access to land for horticulture activities is limited

to slightly more than a third of refugee households (38%), while land ownership for productive activities

continues to be an exception. Ownership of livestock is limited to only half of the refugee population, while

only one out of five households owns draught animals commonly used for livelihood activities

Refugees own very basic farming equipment with one out of four households being even without any tools

that would enable a minimum of farming activity. Only about 15% of households own animal drawn carts or

ploughs and seeders that could intensify farming activity. The vast majority of households barely possess

any major household items, reflecting a high degree of poverty and very low coping potential in the event

of external shocks.

Main concerns raised by refugees in the rural areas are the unavailability of water and poor soil quality,

limited access to medium or long term skills training and lack of access to grants or micro-credit to facilitate

the establishment of income generating activities. Uncertainty over their long term status and integration

opportunities seems to be a common concern.

Health and Nutrition:

The nutrition situation of the refugee population has significantly deteriorated and calls for an urgent

intervention. The prevalence of global acute malnutrition among children aged 6-59 months surpassed the

WHO emergency threshold of 15% and stands at 18.1%, more than double the rates measured in the West

Coast Region (7.5%) nearly at the same time. The level of stunting is ‘serious’ at 32.3% and the proportion

of underweight children is rated ‘critical’ at 30.1%.

The level of morbidity among children and women of reproductive age is high at 44.5% and 35.1%

respectively, despite declining trends in incidence levels of single diseases, good overall access to health

care facilities and steady progress in the provision of preventive health care services.

The quality of hygiene among mothers and women of reproductive age is poor and a serious cause for

concern regarding the potential of disease outbreak and poor food utilization. About 30% of women report

hand washing with water only, after the use of a toilet or washing of child stools, with 28% of refugee

households report unprotected wells as main source of drinking water.

10

Overall low food intake among half of the refugee households, poor dietary diversity in a majority of

refugee households and generally inappropriate food preparation practices for infants point towards

significant food and micronutrient deficiency among the refugee population and are the key explanatory

factors behind high malnutrition rates of children under five years of age.

Water and Sanitation:

Overall water availability among the refugee population has not significantly improved over the past years

and still remains a major challenge. Nearly a quarter of households (24.9%) report even unmet basic water

needs for cooking, drinking and washing, while general water insufficiency continues to hamper productive

activities (e.g. vegetable gardening, livestock rearing).

Many of the refugee households (28%) continue to use open and unprotected wells as their main sources

of drinking water, while most of households (76%) do not treat water in any way before consumption,

thereby heightening the exposure to contamination and water borne diseases. One out of five refugee

households show signs of heightened sanitary vulnerability through use of open pits or unavailability of any

toilet within the compound.

Shelter:

The housing situation of the refugee households has improved only slightly compared to 2009 findings and

much remains to be done to enhance their housing status and living conditions. Almost 40% of households

are still dependent on external assistance for shelter, of which nearly half still lives under one roof with

host families, while the other half makes use of separate housing structures provided by host families.

Although land availability for housing is good and communities generally welcoming, over 30% of

households still cannot access land to construct own houses and only 25% of households own land for

housing, with much uncertainty remaining concerning the potential for local integration and their long-

term establishment in The Gambia. Crowded housing conditions, very basic housing structures, limited

ownership of furnishing and household assets and poor sanitation facilities are further indicators of

endemic poverty, limited coping opportunities and heightened vulnerability of refugee households to food

insecurity, particularly in the event of unexpected shocks.

Education:

Out of 1,170 refugee children identified 1,052 were registered within educational institutions, with refugee

children usually making up between 3-16% of the total student population. The remaining 118 children

(10% of total) were not registered in any school, the majority of which are from two communities in the

Foni Kansala district and part of the new refugee influx.

Despite regular provision of school-fees, a major factor identified as barring children from attending school

is that either their families or the host families could not afford the overall cost of education, including the

cost of educational supplies, school uniforms and in individual cases even the contributions to school

meals. In 14 out of 37 schools (38%) the water and sanitary facilities were not adequate, with latrines and

pumps being either in need of rehabilitation or were insufficient to cover the needs of the enrolled student

population.

11

Protection

Over the last four years the protection status of refugees has considerably improved with the introduction

of the Refugee Act, the establishment of the Commission for Refugees and the near universal coverage of

the population with identification documents, thereby enhancing their overall mobility, access to basic

services and protection of fundamental human rights. However, local integration and the pursuit of

sustainable livelihood activities remains hampered by incomplete access to and very limited ownership of

land for housing, farming or gardening activities. Uncertainty over the continuation of land usage in the

future seems to be an important barrier for refugees to agriculture based self-reliance activities and the

improvement of their food security status.

Recommendations

All sector based recommendations for action can be assessed at the end of each individual Section or under Annex B - Draft Joint Plan of Action.

12

1. Introduction

The fifth Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) of Casamance refugees in The Gambia took place in the context of

a severe drought and crop failure not seen in The Gambia since 1980, triggering a countrywide emergency

response by the Government and the humanitarian community based in the country. The assessment was

the first to be conducted since November 2009, following the phase out of food based assistance and the

gradual introduction of livelihood based support in favour of increased self-reliance of refugee households.

The objectives of this JAM were to assess the food security and vulnerability situation of the Casamance

refugees residing in the rural districts of Foni Berefet, Foni Bintang and Foni Kansala, and the extent to

which the 2011 drought and the resultant crop failure have undermined livelihood projects implemented

since 2009. The assessment is also meant to determine the appropriate response framework for 2013-2014

and to provide a solid basis for resource mobilisation efforts by the Government and partners in the future.

More specifically, the assessment is aimed to:

i) Review how far the recommendations from the last JAM (Dec. 2009) have been implemented

ii) Assess the current food and nutrition security of refugees and analyse their livelihood

strategies on potential for self-reliance, by evaluating their capacity to complement food

assistance with other sources of food and income; re-assess their present coping strategies and

their coping potential in the future;

iii) Assess the future food and non-food needs of refugees (specific focus on women, children and

people with disabilities), with a view to ensuring reasonable access to essential basic social

services in the areas of health, education, nutrition, water, sanitation, shelter and other non-

food related issues; food security, self-reliance and other livelihood issues at household level

would be analysed by looking at the following factors;

- expected refugees’ crop production and projections of gaps;

- scope of existing income generating activities;

- perspectives and development strategies of new income generating activities

that may be undertaken by the refugees, aiming at addressing their basic needs;

- extent to which refugees are integrated in the host communities.

v) Evaluate the strategies pursued by the Government of The Gambia and its partners (including

UNHCR, WFP and other partners) for the integration of refugees. Propose a strategy for partners to

facilitate integration in The Gambia, while identifying possibilities to reinforce the collaboration

with local partners and projects;

vi) Liaise with the Government of The Gambia and identify possibilities to collaborate with partners to

support a sustainable phase out strategy

Scope of Study

The scope of the current study deviated from approaches taken traditionally during JAM assessments by

putting a strong emphasis on the collection of primary data from a representative sample of refugee

13

households and strengthening the collaborative effort between national and international stakeholders on

the question of Casamance refugees in The Gambia. The approach taken is primarily addressing the chronic

lack of reliable and up-to date information on the food security and self-reliance situation of Casamance

refugees and the need for enabling evidence based decision making on the programming of future

assistance to the affected populations. It is further aimed to benefit from the momentum evidenced

recently in The Gambia in conducting multi-sectoral food security and emergency assessments, including

through the availability of updated tools and trained staff.

Limitations (content related)

Although comprehensive in nature, the current assessment does not cover the refugee population living in

the urban areas or intervention modalities related to their livelihoods and well-being. Similarly, it provides

only limited quantifiable information on the migratory and settlement pattern of refugees in the rural

areas. Although the survey includes a separate nutrition component, enabling an evaluation of wasting,

stunting and undernutrition rates among children under-5 through anthropometric measurement, it was

beyond the scope of this assessment to collect data on infant feeding and breastfeeding practices,

micronutrients deficiency, care practices and workload of mothers and women in reproductive age.

14

2. Background and Rationale

The history of the Senegalese refugees in the Gambia dates back to 1982, when a rebel movement known

as MFDC (Movement des Forces Democratiques de la Casamance) commenced an armed insurgency in

Senegal’s southern region, known as Casamance between the borders of The Gambia and Guinea Bissau.

The conflict is characterized by at times very heavy armed confrontations between the rebel movement

and Senegal’s armed forces and resulted in refugees fleeing either into The Gambia or Guinea Bissau for the

past 20 years, but with the majority returning home when tensions decreased.

Following the permanent deployment of the Senegalese army along their side of the border with The

Gambia and intensified fighting between the army and at least one of the MFDC groups in August 2006, a

new wave of at least 6,500 Casamance refugees in need of assistance entered The Gambia. The number of

refugees increased again by almost 1,500 through a new influx in 2011 and 2012, with the total number of

refugees surpassing 8,000. For most of the time Senegalese families were received and housed by Gambian

host families in nearly 70 communities, predominantly within the Foni districts of the West Coast Region.

Refugee and host families share a common Jola ethnicity, language and culture and are often members of

the same extended families.

Throughout these years, UNHCR and partners, like WFP, the Gambia Red Cross Society and NGOs have

been giving necessary support and care to the refugees and their host families in the form of food and non-

food assistance, mainly through: general food distributions, food for work, provision of seeds and farming

implements, construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of water sources and sanitation facilities and the

provision of shelter materials. In October 2008, the Government of the Gambia passed the Refugees Act

which paved the way to enhance the level of protection, mobility and access to basic services for refugee

households and which established the Gambia Commission of Refugees, amongst others in charge of the

issuance of refugee ID cards.

In November 2009, after nearly 3 years of continuous support, food based assistance was phased out in

favour of livelihood strategies, in order to reduce food aid dependency and increase households’ self-

reliance opportunities. Since 2010, assistance was predominantly provided in the form of agricultural tools

and implements as well as skills training in alternative income generation activities. Most of the Senegalese

refugees and their host families are subsistence farmers growing identical crops and practising the same

farming methods, with most of the refugee households obtaining access to land for farming and housing.

In 2011, the Gambia experienced deficient and erratic rainfall, leading to a severe crop failure in most part

of the country, including the refugee settlement areas. As agriculture in the Gambia is rain-fed and small-

holder in nature, the crop failure had a severe impact on agriculture based livelihoods, compelling the

Government of the Gambia to appeal for international assistance in support of the affected farming

communities and to prevent hunger. Food assistance was eventually provided by the Government of The

Gambia, the World Food Programme, The Gambia Red Cross Society and other partners to nearly 230,000

people in most of the seriously affected districts.

The refugees were not specifically identified as direct beneficiaries for the food distributions and it is

unclear to what extent they have benefited from the overall assistance package, including also seed

distributions and nutrition interventions, even though they were equally affected by the drought and its

15

resultant crop failure and have the same livelihood profile as their host families. The drought and crop

failure have also negatively affected the agriculture-based livelihood activities and refugees’ self-reliance.

The current JAM was motivated by the heightened sense of vulnerability experienced by the majority of

refugee households in 2012, particularly following the 2011 crop failure and the widespread inaccessibility

to emergency assistance. It is the first JAM that has been undertaken since November 2009, with previous

assessments being done on a nearly annual basis since September 2006. Due to a general lack of relevant

secondary data on the vulnerability status of the refugee population, the large time lag since the previous

assessment and the severity of the food security situation in 2011-2012 it was decided to conduct a

comprehensive vulnerability assessment of the refugee population in the main rural areas, with a particular

emphasis on food security, nutrition and livelihoods.

Contrary to the previous assessments, which were predominantly rapid and qualitative in nature, the

current JAM relies primarily on quantitative tools and methods and is multi-sectoral in scope, involving the

active participation of a dozen of government institutions, UN agencies and NGO partners. In addition to

food security and livelihoods, household data collection also includes a nutrition component that is based

on anthropometric measurements of children under the age of 5 and covers relevant aspects of water and

sanitation, shelter, education and protection.

As data collection was community based, accounting for 86% of the registered rural refugee population,

the current assessment can be considered as a food security and vulnerability baseline of the Casamance

refugees living in the rural areas of The Gambia as at November 2012. As refugee households living in the

urban areas are not within the scope of the current assessment, no qualified statements can be made on

their demographic characteristics or food security and vulnerability status.

16

3. Methodology

Data Collection

A joint collaboration of UNHCR/WFP/Government of The Gambia and other partners combined qualitative

and quantitative data collection techniques, including primary data collection from nearly 500 refugee

households in 52 communities. Primary data has been triangulated with information obtained from

available secondary sources, including the previous JAM reports.1 Information was collected through a

combination of:

i) Collection of quantitative data from a representative sample of the refugee population through a

detailed household questionnaire to determine their food security, nutrition and vulnerability situation

and the effectiveness of employed livelihood strategies;

ii) Desk review and analysis of relevant reports, in particular recent food security assessments and

nutrition surveillance reports;

iii) Focus group discussions with groups of refugees and hosts – conducted separately for men and women;

iv) Key informant interviews in communities with refugee presence with personnel responsible for food,

health, water, sanitation, education and community services, refugee leaders and community

representatives;

v) Meetings with national, regional and local authorities, NGOs, and other organizations working with

refugees in food assistance and related programmes;

vi) Meetings with Government, UNHCR and WFP staff, as well as with representatives from the donor

community;

Sampling

Household data collection was initially conducted through a two stage sampling process, based on available

refugee registration data from the 2010 verification exercise:

Stage 1:

Out of the 72 communities in which the refugee population was located, those communities were selected

in which the refugee population made up at least 2% of the total refugee population, for both the old and

new refugee populations separately. Data collection was initially intended in 14 communities which would

host 72% of the total refugee population from the old influx and in 9 communities which would host 92% of

the total refugee population from the most recent influx. The communities to be visited were all

concentrated in the districts of Foni Berefet, Foni Bintang and Foni Kansala, in which 97% of the rural

refugee population is registered.

Stage 2:

In each selected community household questionnaires were to be administered to every second listed

refugee household which led to a combined sample of 551 refugee households, 468 households from the

old and 83 from the new refugee caseload, making up nearly one-third (33%) of all expected refugee

households in the Foni districts.

1 See reference list for available secondary information

17

Stage 3 (revision of sampling procedure during field work):

During the first day of the data collection process household listing of the selected refugee communities

revealed a significant drop of the number of present refugee households as against the expected records

(on average by 50-80%), which led to an immediate revision and simplification of the sampling procedure.

Given the high number of non-existent households at the time of data collection it was decided to instantly

reallocate all the remaining communities which were outside the initial sampling frame to the field based

teams and collect household data from all refugee households in all communities in which they were to be

found, i.e. conduct a refugee census in the three Foni districts. In case of work related absenteeism,

households would be re-visited the same or the following day.

Field Work and Data Quality

Data was collected on two separate components: 1) household food security and vulnerability

questionnaire and 2) anthropometric measurement of children aged 6-59 months as well as health and care

taking practices of mothers and women in reproductive age. A team was composed of 4 enumerators and

one team leader. Three of the enumerators would collect household data on the first component

(household food security and vulnerability) while the fourth enumerator, a designated health worker from

the region or district, would collect anthropometric information jointly with the team-leader, the

interviewed household and active community members.

Tools used included a comprehensive 12 page household questionnaire for the first component, based on

the CFSVA methodology but adapted to the refugee context in The Gambia, and for the second component

a shortened version of the standard anthropometry questionnaire, used for the SMART nutrition survey in

September 2012. Tools used for anthropometric measurement included one salter scale and shorr board

per enumeration team but excluded MUAC. Since most of the enumerators and team leaders were

experienced and familiar with the methodology from identical assessments in the recent past, a two day

refresher training on the household forms and anthropometry tools, including pre-testing in sample

refugee communities was conducted prior to data collection.

Evaluation of the enumerators' work by the supervisors was a continuous exercise throughout the

enumeration period. When the enumeration was over and the supervisor was satisfied with the

completeness of the household questionnaires, he/she collected the completed questionnaires and filed

them for eventual hand-over to data processing staff. During the enumeration quality control procedures

stressed correct filling of the questionnaires, and through regular observation of a sample of interviews and

consistency checks, ensured correct interpretation and presentation of questions. Areas of

misunderstanding were immediately identified and clarified and remedial training was provided to those

enumerators whose performance fell short of expectations.

Data Entry and Analysis

A coding scheme was developed to indicate how each identification item was to be coded. After the coding,

questionnaires were entered into the computer using CSPro software package, which is compatible for data

transfers and linkages with other statistical software e.g. the IBM SPSS Statistics and Microsoft Excel. The

coding and data entry activity lasted for 10 days with the help of 6 data entry clerks and was entered into

an SPSS database. An experienced data analyst from GBOS prepared the data entry screen, supervised the

data entry process, cleaned and prepared the data set, and produced most summary tables for analysis.

18

Anthropometric measurements

In the context of a severe crop failure and with the last comprehensive health and nutrition survey of the

refugee population dating back to November 2008 it was necessary to include a quantitative nutrition

component to the household survey to capture key nutrition indicators. All children aged 6-59 months

(n=415) in households selected for interview were anthropometrically assessed with the goal to determine

their nutritional status, based on the most recent WHO growth references for acute malnutrition, stunting

and underweight using z-scores.

It must be noted that this survey did not capture other important elements or indicators that were

captured during the 2008 refugee nutrition and health survey, such as infant feeding practices,

breastfeeding practices, micronutrients deficiencies, overweight, care practices and workload of mothers,

thus leaving out a critical element of comparison between the 2008 and 2012 surveys.

Although the findings point to a critical nutrition situation for the refugee children, it is worthwhile to

recognize the limitations of the anthropometric data. The data set used was cleaned to levels acceptable to

conduct a solid analysis but still issues of digit preference on height and weight measurements occurred

while the standard deviation of the children in this survey is more than 1.2 which could be a problem in a

less obvious emergency scenario.

Analysis and Report Writing

During consultations the Technical Working Group (TWG) developed an analysis plan to guide the report

writing process. The different stakeholders were assigned areas of the report based on their comparative

advantage and experience in the area. A VAM Consultant from WFP was responsible to coordinate the

technical preparation of the assessment, provision of inputs and conduct the final editing of the report. The

analysis plan was jointly scrutinized to ensure that the tables and figures that will form part of the report

are relevant and consistent before being included in the final narrative. This report was circulated to

members of the TWG for comments, after which it was revised and subject to a pre-validation exercise by

the extended working group in July 2013. All stakeholders were availed with a new opportunity to critically

look at the report with a view to further improving it both in terms of quality and content and provide

written commentary during the final round of review of the consolidated draft.

Limitations (process related)

Limitations inherent in the report writing process include: late and intermittent availability of minimum

logistical requirements such as Daily Service Allowance (DSA) and fuel coupons, preventing the

enumeration teams to conduct data collection efficiently and without unnecessary delay; insufficient time

allocated to training, testing and quality check of questionnaires, resulting in the need to ensure close

supervision of several enumerators and re-train them during the data collection process; limited number of

staff allocated to conduct anthropometry, resulting in overstretch of teams and the need for repeated

quality control by team leaders; limited availability of and slow accessibility to secondary information, in

particular on information relating to the implementation of recommendations from past JAMs

19

Section 1: Demography

Section 2: Food Security

a) Vulnerability and External Shocks

b) Food Availability, Food Access, Food Utilization and Coping Strategies

c) Self-Reliance

Section 3: Health and Nutrition

Section 4: Water and Sanitation

Section 5: Shelter

Section 6: Education

Section 7: Protection

20

Figure 1: Distribution of registered refugee population per rural district

25%

35%

37%

3% Foni Berefet

Foni Bintang

Foni Kansala

Other Rural

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Outdated refugee population figures have been a reason for concern raised repeatedly by previous

assessments. It was commonplace that not all refugee households have been captured during initial

registration exercises while frequent population movement made collected data outdated quickly, causing

a mismatch in reporting and gaps in community based targeting of food and livelihood based interventions.

Population and settlement data used for the current JAM are based on the UNHCR population database

proGres. The database has been operational since 2012 and it includes a comprehensive set of personal

information on the registered refugee population as established through their physical count and

verification from 2010 until today.

CURRENT SITUATION

For programming purposes, the registered refugee population is

subdivided into households who arrived to The Gambia in the

period of 2006 – 2010, amounting to 7,059 people in 1,043

households, and refugees who arrived to The Gambia only

recently as part of the 2011 and 2012 influx. Refugees who

arrived during the last two years amount to 1,266 people living in

210 households (15% of total refugee population), of which most

live in the district of Foni Kansala. The total number of refugees

RECAP

Findings:

“More than 1,500 new additional refugees […]

were not registered [in 2006] because they did not

understand the registration process. […] there

were 870 newly registered refugees, during the

month of February 2008, bringing the total number

to 7,290. […] These refugees have been in The

Gambia also since late 2006 but did not partake in

the initial registration exercises”

“Refugees move freely throughout the country”

(JAM 2008)

“The number of refugees on the registration

database often does not match the actual number

of refugees living in the respective villages. […] It is

possible that this of refugees in temporary and

fluid in nature […] but there are other accounts of

refugees having gone back to the Casamance and

returning to The Gambia for the food distribution.

(JAM 2009)

Recommendations:

“Ensure that all refugees are registered, have their

ID cards, or at least understand the registration

process” (JAM 2009)

“Update basic household demographics as the

current data is 2-3 years old and the numbers on

the registration list/database do not reflect the

actual numbers on the ground”

“Ensure VDC/Activity Coordinators keep an up-to

date record of and regularly report on the number

of refugee households that participate in FFW

schemes, which will help track the number of

present vs. absent refugees” (JAM 2009)

21

registered in the rural areas of The Gambia amounts to 8,325 people living in 1,253 households, most of

which are recorded in the districts of Foni Kansala (37% of refugee population), Foni Bintang (35%) and Foni

Berefet (25%) with the remainder living mostly in Kombo Central and Kombo East (3%). Within these

districts the refugee population is dispersed across 71 rural communities. Additional 671 refugees live in

the Greater Banjul Area, according to the 2010 registration results, and are commonly referred as urban

refugees. Since the current assessment did not cover the urban refugee population it can neither verify

these population figures nor provide analysis of the food security and livelihood status of this sub-group.

Data collection was conducted in 52 rural communities (73% of total) in Foni Berefet, Foni Bintang and Foni

Kansala, with the initial expectation of covering 5,936 people (84% of total registered) in 865 households

(83% of total registered). The assessment revealed that only a proportion of the population expected in the

respective communities has been actually found residing there during the household listing and data

collection process. Despite a comprehensive search in the targeted communities, enumeration teams were

able to list only 496 households (46% of expected) representing a cumulative refugee population of 4,793

people living in the Foni districts (67% of expected population). Complete data sets were collected from

480 households with an average household size of 10 as against 8 for the country average. Under the

condition that the same rate of household absenteeism and average family size applies in the remaining 19

communities for the non-assessed 17% of households, an additional 794 people are estimated to live in

the rural area, bringing the estimated refugee population in the rural areas to 5,587 people.

Table 1: Number and distribution of refugee households per district, comparison of planning and actual figures

Table 2: Number and distribution of refugee population per district, comparison of planning and actual figures

District

Communities

Old Ref.

Households

(Expected)

New Ref.

Households

(Expected)

Total Ref.

Households

(Expected)

Total Ref.

Households

(Actual)

Presence

Share

Foni Berefet 13 325 0 325 119 37%

Foni Bintang 29 424 0 424 166 39%

Foni Kansala 22 249 210 459 211 46%

Other Rural 7 45 0 45 n.a.

Total 71 1,043 210 1,253 n.a.

Total (assess) 52 865 210 1,075 496 46%

Coverage % 73% 83% 100% 86%

District Communities Old Ref.

Population

(Expected)

New Ref.

Population

(Expected)

Total Ref.

Population

(Expected)

Total Ref.

Population

(Actual)

Pres.

Share

HH

Size

Foni Berefet 13 2,113 0 2,113 1,016 48% 9

Foni Bintang 29 2,917 0 2,917 1,859 64% 11

Foni Kansala 22 1,775 1,266 3,041 1,918 63% 9

Other Rural 7 254 0 254 n.a. n.a.

Total 71 7,059 1,266 8,325 n.a. n.a.

Total (assess) 52 5,936 1,266 7,202 4,793 67% 10

Coverage % 73% 84% 100% 87%

22

Figure 2: Refugee households, actual presence vs. expected

325

424

459

119

166

211

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Foni Berefet

Foni Bintang

Foni Kansala

Total Ref HH (Actual) Total Ref HH (Expected)

Figure 3: Refugee population, actual presence vs. expected

2,113

2,917

3,041

1,016

1,859

1,918

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Foni Berefet

Foni Bintang

Foni Kansala

Total Ref POP (Actual) Total Ref POP (Expected)

Figure 4: Village distribution of new refugee population in Foni Kansala, actual presence vs. expected

579

687

1,266

34

7

20

61

55 79

110

6

38

50

35

31

92

41

659

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

Kanfenda

Ballen

Bugingha

Buluntu

Bwiam

Dobong

Gikess Dando

Kambong

Kanilai

Kantimba

Kappa

Karunor

Mandina

Monom

Total

Actual

Expected

Interviews with remaining refugees and refugee representatives revealed that it was commonplace for

households to return to Casamance given the recent crop failure and the households’ inability to sustain

them. However, the statement could not be further qualified due to the spontaneous nature of refugee

movement inhibiting any effective population monitoring and the porous nature of the border separating

Senegal from The Gambia.

Migration to other communities within the rural areas was also mentioned and could be partially verified

through data collection during the current JAM. On the example of the refugee population from the 2011

and 2012 influx it could be observed that migration within one district is a normal occurrence. Refugee

households registered in the communities of Bwiam and Buluntu and representing 1,266 people live

scattered throughout the rest of the district in 12 different communities, currently accounting for only 659

people (52% of the new influx). It is unclear if the remainder of the population is living in rural communities

not covered by the current assessment; has returned to Senegal or moved to the urban areas.

Migration to the Greater Banjul Area was also mentioned as a possible reason for household absenteeism,

but it also remains unclear to what extent it is prevalent among the overall refugee population and how it

impacts the wellbeing of households.

23

Figure 6: Gender of refugee population / year of arrival

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total

2006-2010

2011

2012

Male Female

Figure 5: Refugee population / year of arrival

3% 11%

86%

2012 2011 2006-2010

Figure 7: Gender of refugee population / age group

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total

60+

15 to 59

6 to 14

3 to 5

24

Of the total population covered, 378 are children of 2 years of age or younger (8 % of total), 462 are aged 3

to 5 years (10 %) and 1,312 children are of school going age between 6 and 14 years (27 %). With 332

people almost 7 % are elderly of 60 years and above. Nearly half of the population is of working age

between 15 and 59 years.

During the assessment 1175 children born in the last six years preceding the survey were covered, 154 of

whom were not born in the Gambia (13.1%). Of the children born in the Gambia, 52% were issued with

Gambian birth certificate as opposed to 48% that were not.

The overall level of education and literacy within

the household is low. On the whole, 70% of

household heads have no formal education

while only 14.3% of household heads attained

primary and 12.6% secondary level of

education. Lack of formal education is

negatively skewed towards female heads of

households (91.7%) compared to their male

counterparts (65.7%). Only 3.3% of female

household heads have attained primary

education, as opposed to 16.3% of their male

counterparts.

It has been further established that of the household heads who have no formal education, only 8.4% are

minimally literate, i.e. they could read and write a simple message in any language, while this proportion

stands at 91.6% for those who have attained the primary education level.

CONCLUSION

A mismatch between figures of the registered refugee population and households living in designated areas

has been identified as a major problem during past assessments and remains as such to date, despite

significant improvements in household registration methodology and recording. Population figures

recorded during the official registration process mostly do not match with those found in the field during

field monitoring or periodical assessments while inconsistencies have been observed between different

reports when it comes to total refugee population figures.

Figure 8: Number and distribution of refugee population / age group

82

128

168

85

172

205

282

474

556

439

967

918

54

139

139

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Foni Berefet

Foni Bintang

Foni Kansala

25

The current JAM found that of the 1,075 households expected in 52 communities that were assessed, only

496 households have been still present, representing a drop of nearly 54%. Out of the total refugee

population of 7,202 expected in these households, household listing could establish the presence of

4,793 people (67% of expected total).

Credible figures on the refugee population actually living in the Fonis are hard to establish due to the

spontaneous nature of refugee movement inhibiting any effective population monitoring and the porous

nature of the border separating Senegal from The Gambia. Based on the comprehensive village coverage,

the prevalence of household absenteeism and average family size, the current assessment estimates a

minimum of 5,600 people living in Senegalese refugee households in the rural areas of The Gambia.

Refugee households present in the communities and refugee leaders clarified that most of households who

left the communities, have done so given the limited livelihood opportunities available and the difficult

living conditions experienced, particularly following the 2011 crop failure. The return to Casamance and

migration to other communities within the West Coast Region have been mentioned as primary

destinations but no details could be established as to the magnitude of trans-boundary movements or the

migration to urban areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Population Assessment

• Verifiy refugees’ current location and number and update database; include vulnerability profiling and analysis of migratory patterns

• Conduct a detailed assessment of the refugee population in the urban areas, to verify their population number, level of well-being and livelihood profile

26

Section 1: Demography

Section 2: Food Security

a) Vulnerability Background and External Shocks

b) Food Availability, Food Access, Food Utilization and Coping Strategies

c) Self-Reliance

Section 3: Health and Nutrition

Section 4: Water and Sanitation

Section 5: Shelter

Section 6: Education

Section 7: Protection

27

Map 1: Proportion of district population suffering from moderate or severe food insecurity, January 2011

Figure 10: Food Security Classification

32.8%

61.5%

5.3% 0.4%

Gambia (2011)

16%

45%

32%

7%

Refugees (2012)

Food secure

Mild food insecurity

Moderate food insecurity

Severe food insecurity

a) Vulnerability Background and External Shocks

VULNERABILITY CONTEXT

In January 2011, WFP and partner agencies from government and the humanitarian sector conducted a

Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA) of The Gambia. It is the first of its kind

baseline survey conducted in the country, establishing the proportion of the population suffering from food

insecurity, their household characteristics, location and exposure to shocks and type of coping strategies

employed. While it did not assess refugees as a specific population group, inferences can be made about

their level of vulnerability and exposure to shocks based on their household and livelihood characteristics

and geographical location.

The data revealed that two-thirds (67.2%) of the Gambian households

face some form of food insecurity and are vulnerable in a period of

highest economic activity and directly following the annual harvest. The

majority of the vulnerable population (61.5%) is classified as mildly food

insecure, having the ability to maintain sufficient levels of food

consumption without the need to resort to negative coping strategies

that would undermine their livelihood base. Nearly 6% of the

population is made of the chronically food insecure, i.e. households

suffering from moderate or severe food insecurity. If at all, these

households are able to maintain a minimum level of food consumption

only when selling productive assets or otherwise putting at risk their

future well-being (e.g. take children out of school, sell land).

The proportion of population suffering most from food insecurity in The

Gambia varies between districts and livelihoods. In January 2011, the

highest proportion of people with moderate and severe food insecurity

has been recorded in the Foni districts of the West Coast Region

(17.2%) in which the majority of the Casamance refugees are located. It

was also established that the highest incidence of food insecurity and

vulnerability affects households whose primary livelihood sources are

non-agricultural wage labor, the production and sale of cash crops and

28

Map 2: Districts seriously affected by drop in crop production in 2011/2012, January 2012

self-employment/petty trade, activities that are also predominant among refugee households. Households

headed by women; those with illiterate household heads; and those using unimproved sources of drinking

water or sanitation facilities were also more likely to be identified as food insecure.

According to this JAM, only 16% of refugee households can be considered as food secure while 84% show

some form of food insecurity and vulnerability. Nearly half of the households (45%) are able to meet only

minimally adequate food consumption needs (2,100 kcal per person/day) without engaging in irreversible

coping strategies that would undermine their livelihood base (mild food insecurity). The proportion of the

refugee population experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity is at alarming 39% as of November

2012 (during the harvest, after 2011 crop failure), compared to 17.2% in West Coast Region and nearly 6%

for the Gambia as established by the CFSVA in January 2011 (near end of harvest, before 2011 crop failure).

These households either have significant food consumption gaps or are able to meet minimum

consumption, but not necessarily dietary needs, only by reverting to coping strategies that undermine their

productive capacity and ownership of key assets, which would eventually lead to food consumption gaps.

The high level of moderate and severe food insecurity among the refugee population can be explained by

multiple factors, including low food availability, highly constrained production capacity, endemic poverty

and low asset ownership and the limited impact of food and livelihood interventions. External shocks that

were experienced recently, such as a countrywide crop failure during the 2011/12 agriculture season and

high food prices have played a pivotal role in exacerbating the refugee households’ level of vulnerability

and undermining their food access and coping capacity.

EXTERNAL SHOCKS

Crop failure

Late, erratic, and unevenly distributed rainfall, with a precipitation deficit in some areas of the country

ranging between 14 – 35% against the 30-year average, had a major impact on crop production during the

2011/12 season. Overall crop production fell by 62% compared to the 2010 season and by 50% against the

5-year average, triggering a declaration of crop failure by the Government of The Gambia on March 6th

2012 and the call for humanitarian assistance.3 The Government, UN agencies and other humanitarian

partners mobilized food relief; livelihood and health support to nearly 230,000 people most at risk to food

insecurity, particularly targeting small-holder farming households, children under-5 and pregnant and

3 Multi-Sectoral Emergency Needs Assessment (GoTG, UN System, GRCS, TANGO; May 2012)

29

lactating women. The Senegalese refugee population has not been targeted as a specific population

group under that support scheme and it is unclear if refugee households have benefited in any way from

support that was provided nationwide, even though they were residing in districts assessed as most

affected and with lowest availability of food stocks at the time (See Map 2; Figure 2).

Key informant interviews revealed that the issue of Senegalese refugees was neither taken up during the

emergency coordination meetings of the Food Security Council4 nor was it part of the joint UN appeal5

which covered, amongst others, emergency food and seed distribution and the provision of assistance in

the areas of nutrition, health, water and sanitation. Even though the targeting scheme itself prioritized

subsistence farmers and vulnerable households with pregnant and lactating women and children under the

age of 5, under which most refugees could have been captured by default, it was stipulated under the

distribution modalities that only households who could provide a valid identification document such as a

national ID or voter’s card would benefit from the distribution. As a direct consequence, this had a

prohibiting effect for refugee households to access assistance, unless indirectly through their hosts.

It seems that the gravity of the emergency itself severely strained the operational capacity of national

institutions and humanitarian agencies with the mandate to provide and coordinate assistance to various

vulnerable groups. Insufficient staffing, multiple conflicting priorities and the change of key management

positions prior to and during the emergency were common place among government and humanitarian

agencies alike, thereby hampering effective planning and coordination of the emergency response

operation

High food prices

Rising food prices appeared as a serious threat to household food security in The Gambia at the end of

2008, during the aftermath of the global spike in food prices. In December 2008, the price of small grained

imported rice, the most common staple food in The Gambia, reached a record 19.5 Dalasi per kilo, up by

nearly 40% in just 8 months. Rice prices have stabilized in 2009-2010 but did not reach their nominal pre-

crisis levels. Instead, coupled with a reduction in national fuel subsidies, they continued a growth trend

4 The national Food Security Council is an inter-agency forum chaired at the time by the Office of the Vice President of The Gambia, comprising all relevant ministries and government bodies, UN agencies and NGOs, with the objective to coordinate and take decisions on key food security issues in The Gambia. During the 2012 crop failure emergency the forum met on a bi-monthly basis, but without the representation of UNHCR. 5 In The Gambia, humanitarian coordination on behalf of the UN System is the responsibility of WFP given the absence of an OCHA representation. UNHCR has the mandate to coordinate refugee affairs but it has not been part of the joint UN appeal in 2012.

Figure 11: Availability of household food stocks within 25 districts seriously affected by 2011 crop failure, March 2012

93%

66% 43%

66% 51%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

WCR NBR LRR CRR URR

Food (3 months or longer)

Food (2 months)

Food (1 month)

No Food

30

from January 2011 onwards, surpassing the 2008 crisis benchmark of 20 Dalasi per kilo already in August

2012.

Food price inflation is currently the main driver of overall inflationary pressure in The Gambia. As of

December 2012, year on year inflation of food products (6%) was more pronounced than for non-food

products and services (4%), while it was recorded highest for bread and cereals (10.6%), oils and fats

(6.6%), fruits and nuts (5.6%) and meat (5.4%).6 Rising food prices may negatively affect the food access

and quality of diet of poorest and most vulnerable households and reduce their capacity to withstand

other shocks (e.g. drought, floods or loss of primary bread winner in the family).

Floods

Flooding has been a re-current phenomenon in The Gambia as a result of heavy rainfall, blocked drainage

and widespread settling in riverine urban areas. In 2009, 2010 and 2012 between 15,000 and 40,000 people

have been negatively affected by floods and windstorms on an annual basis, with major damage recorded

to private property, infrastructure and livelihoods. However, flooding has not been a significant shock for

the refugee population with only minor damages and less than 100 households recorded in need of

assistance during the entire period of 2008 – 2012.

6 Daa Nyeeno – Food Security and Market Information Bulletin for The Gambia (Issue 5, May 2013)

Figure 12: Development of rice prices in The Gambia (2008 - 2012)

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

No

v

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

No

v

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

No

v

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

No

v

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

No

v

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Small-grained rice (imported) Paddy rice (local)

31

b) Food Availability, Food Access, Food Utilization and Coping

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

RECAP

Findings:

“The initial response to the crisis is appropriate

and effective and greatly appreciated by the

beneficiaries, government and various partners”

“The 2007/8 agricultural season is considered by

farmers and all partners met to be below well

average in all villages visited, and food stocks are

low. Unfortunately, at the time of the mission

official data to confirm this were not available.”

“[R]efugees and hosts are sharing their food

resources to cope with the lack of food from their

own harvests.” (JAM 2008)

“[T]his JAM found that the expected harvest at

household level is above average/ acceptable.

Better-off refugee households (seven out of a total

of 33) indicated food stocks will last 4 months

whereby poor and very poor refugee households

indicated a range of 1.5 – 2.5 months. By

comparison, host households indicated production

will last up to 5 months.”

“Due to lack of timely contributions the project

experienced considerable pipeline breaks in 2009.

[...] food commodities were only able to meet 26

percent of the requirements for November and

December 2010. Consequently, rations for the

General Food Distributions had to be reduced by

50% and the FFW activities cancelled”.

“There is no sign of deterioration in the food

security situation of refugees since the last JAM.

Production estimates for the upcoming harvest

are well above last year and the 5 year average

and expected to cater for over 50% of domestic

food needs of rural farmers. At the household

level, expected harvest is above average and

better than last year with food stocks estimated

to last up to 4 months for refugees and 5 months

for hosts respectively. (JAM 2009)

Recommendations:

“The JAM mission recommends that the EMOP be

extended for a period of six months (October 2008

through March 2009) and that the rations be

reduced as of January 2009 from 2,100

kcal/person/day to 1,600 kcal/person/day, since

this period corresponds with end of the harvest,

and the height of food availability and food

access. If the harvest for 2008/2009 is below

normal, and a detailed assessment reveals that a

full ration is required, this recommendation can be

revisited” (JAM 2008)

“[T]he JAM duly notes that the shift from food

support to livelihoods support has been

appropriate and the focus on the latter should be

maintained. Given the increased degrees of food

security and self-reliance attained by refugees

despite the reduction in food distribution over the

last few years, the JAM recommends a complete

phase out of food assistance by mid-2010 for the

non-vulnerable refugee population contingent to

the following conditions:

A. Continue with the current food assistance […]

for the initial period during which the refugee

database should be updated

C. Upon updating of refugee database, there

will be two target groups:

i. The non-vulnerable refugee population

will be assisted through FFW/FFT schemes

only during the remaining months until

complete phase out by June 2010; and

ii. The vulnerable refugee population will be

assisted with a full ration 2,100 Kcal at least

until the next harvest season […] and beyond

if necessary and given priority consideration

for the aforementioned integration package

with regard to IGA and other self-reliance

opportunities. (JAM 2009)

32

Throughout the emergency period food assistance has been the primary source of food for the majority of

refugee households, with beneficiary coverage7 being nearly universal and the ration size adequate8

between 2007, 2008 and much of 2009. Reviews of refugees’ vulnerability situation repeatedly highlighted

that refugees remained highly dependent on assistance to ensure that their basic food requirements were

met, even though up to 90% of households were engaged in farming activities. Limited productive capacity,

low output potential, endemic poverty and few alternative income sources meant that up until 2009 food

from own agricultural production and income generation was seen as able only to complement the rations

received from aid agencies and not serve as an adequate substitute.9

In order to foster the transition towards self-reliance full rations were provided to vulnerable households10

only and a ration cut of 30% was implemented for all other households, starting from the General Food

Distributions (GFD) in January 2009. A full ration was reintroduced for all beneficiaries in July 2009, with the

commencement of the Food-for-Work (FFW) project towards which 50% of the rations were devoted as

food assistance conditional upon refugees’ participation in the planned activities.

However, throughout 2009, WFP experienced considerable pipeline breaks due to the lack of timely food

donations and had to borrow food from its development project to maintain the ration size and distribution

schedule for the refugee project. Low food balances for the months of November and December 2009 (26%

of requirement), lack of prospect for new funds, favorable agricultural predictions for the 2009/2010

harvest and the simultaneous development of the self-reliance strategy created an environment in which

the phase out food assistance was considered necessary already in November 2009.11

The timing of the phase-out was critical in so far as the refugee households still remained in a highly

fragile position with regard to food access and self-reliance. The self-reliance strategy was merely

beginning to take shape,12 without alternative livelihood activities being put in place until 2010; the Food-

7 Nutrition and Health Survey of Casamance Refugees in The Gambia (2008, NaNA/WFP)

8 Each refugee received a daily ration of Rice (400g), Corn Soya Blend (60g), yellow split beans (60g), vegetable oil (25g) and iodized salt (5g) to meet the recommended 2,100 kilocalories per person per day 9 Ibid. 10 The most vulnerable households included amongst others the elderly, ill, physically disabled, widows with children, pregnant women and female headed households 11 Remaining stock balances were distributed on one more occasion (May and June 2010) to most vulnerable households and all other households at a ration cut of 50%, coinciding with the beginning of the ‘hungry season’. 12 UNHCR Livelihood assessment missions from October 2008, April 2009 and September 2009

“At the time of the previous JAM (Dec-08), a high percentage of refugee households reported to depend

almost entirely on food aid for their daily meals. Most refugees cultivated some land but harvest was

found to be generally poor with grains barely lasting two months.” (JAM 2009)

“The refugees interviewed categorically highlight the lack of food for the family. In all the meetings, the

refugees said they depend on 2 meals per day while others on 1 and a half meal [...]. None of them have

breakfast in the morning; only left-over food from the dinner is given to the children. [...] Majority of

them says [food from own produce] will serve them for 1-3 months. The reason for the cause is said to be

on flooding of crop fields, poor soils, insufficient land and insufficient tools and inputs.”

(UNHCR/GAFNA Situational Assessment of Donkeys, 2012)

(UNHCR 2009)

33

Figure 13: Proportion of annual domestic cereal requirements covered by national cereal production

46% 70% 77%

88%

46% 69%

54% 30% 23%

12%

54% 31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Domestic food gap Domestic crop production (optimistic)

for-Work activities were suspended in November 2009 since they were tied to the phase out of food

assistance itself, while their true impact on household self-reliance was not encouraging; and the refugees’

groundnut harvest for 2009/2010 was predicted to be insufficient due to the poor quality of seeds supplied,

with germination failure ranging between 40-60%.

The only other period where food assistance13 was provided concerned the new refugee influx of 1,650

people in 2011 (January – April) and 2012 (January – May, July – October), leaving the majority of the

refugee population (86%) to source food through own production, borrowing or reliance on the host

communities throughout 2010 – 2012.

CURRENT SITUATION

Food availability

Overall food availability in The Gambia has been improving in the period of 2007 – 2010, based on

favorable weather conditions and high investment in agriculture. In an optimistic scenario14 total cereal

production in The Gambia reached nearly 250,000 metric tons, accounting for up to 88% of national cereal

requirements in 2010, thereby providing a good basis for the resumption of agriculture based livelihood

activities and the strengthening of self-reliance among the refugee population.15 However, as a result of the

2011 crop failure national crop production has significantly contracted and did not recover to its pre-crisis

levels (See pp. 28-29 for more details). For 2012, the expectations are that national cereal requirements

could be met by up to 69% through domestic production16, similar to the 2008 levels.

The emergency situation has also affected the farming activities of refugee households and undermined

efforts to improve their self-reliance. Following the 2011 crop failure refugee households experienced very

low food availability and seed scarcity, with 87% of households able to source food from own production

for a duration of 1-3 months only, similar to output levels observed throughout the period of 2007 - 2009.

The livelihood situation was further undermined by lack of seed and input support in 2011 and 2012 and

could have further exacerbated refugee households’ food security in 2012/2013.

13 Food was donated by UNHCR and provided by GAFNA through local procurement, consisting of rice (400g/person/day), vegetable oil (25g), iodized salt (5g), local beans (100g). 14 The most optimistic assumption is that total crop production would be adjusted downwards by 15% to account for post-harvest losses and seeds. In the sub-Saharan context, however, post-harvest losses for major crops might reach even up to 40%. 15 The national cereal requirement is based on annual cereal consumption of 175 kilograms per capita. 16 WFP analysis, based on data from 2013 National Agriculture Sample Survey

34

Figure 14: Period of availability (in months) of self-grown cereal stocks for own consumption following harvest in 2011/12

11%

11%

19%

15%

78%

75%

67%

72%

9%

14%

11%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Foni Berefet

Foni Bintang

Foni Kansala

Average 0

1 to 3

4 to 6

7 to 12

Low food availability stemming from domestic production is not the only determinant of household food

insecurity throughout the country given good availability of imported food, in particular staples such as

rice, vegetable/cooking oil or sugar. In June 2011, a WFP-led market assessment concluded that food is

generally available and markets throughout the country are functioning while supply routes are well

integrated, with short distances to major markets facilitating physical access to produce and customers.17

The refugee hosting districts are directly connected to the major national market of Brikama (Kombo

Central District) and have at least two relevant markets at disposal for commercial activity and sale of farm

produce in Sibanor (Foni Bintang) and Bwiam (Foni Kansala).

Food access

In The Gambia, the key constraining factors in relation to food security

evolve less around physical availability of foods or remoteness of markets

but to other factors inhibiting their economic access, particularly in terms of

affordability of food and the means of transportation to buy or sell produce.

Household poverty among the refugees is high, endemic and reflective of

low asset ownership and limited productive capacity. Three out of four

refugee households (76%) estimate an annual income of no more than

10,000 Dalasis, which translates into less than 1,000 Dalasis or roughly

US$ 33 per month for the entire household.18 Nearly 50% of households

reported annual earnings that are even half that amount while 6% report

not to have any significant earnings at all.

Reliance on one income source only is reported by nearly 22% of

households, while that figure is at 47% and 22% for households with two

and three or more incomes sources respectively. The vast majority of

households have no salaried employment (91%), while 5% and 4% of

households have either one or two members as salaried employees respecti