This document provides an overview of food security and nutrition interventions in Sudan. It summarizes the high levels of food insecurity and malnutrition across Sudan due to factors like conflict, climate change, and poverty. It then outlines the various interventions by international organizations, EU member states, and Sudanese government ministries to address these issues through activities like food assistance, livelihood support, nutrition programs, and capacity building. Challenges to coordination and access are also discussed.

1. Provision of Support to Economic Analysis and sector plan-
ning in support of the Republic of Sudan
FED/2014/350-649
Funded by the European Union
Food Security and Nutrition Sector Report
Aart van der Heide
May 16, 2015
Rationale and Methodology!
The food security definition for the study conducted is the following:
Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient
safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and
healthy life. Food security is not a goal in itself but a means to achieve a higher goal i.e. a good
health and nutritional status of all members of the family or household.
For the task assigned,the mainobjective discussedinthe technical paperistodocumentand inform
the EU Delegationonopportunities viable options to improving household food security and to di-
minish stunting and wasting for the Sudanese population.
Synergyof the foodand nutritionsecuritysector is required with the other sectors of intervention,
especially livelihood and health.
1. A brief contextual introduction to the sector and strategic reason for the European Union to
engage.
Sudan is a food insecure and not self-sufficient country in terms of global cereal and other staple
food.Cereal productionfluctuatesondifferentyearquite dramaticallybasedonrisksof drought and
seasonality,withhighbasicfoodpricesonthe local marketseveningoodcropyears,as was the case
in 20141
. Climate change and enduring conflicts further exacerbate the already difficult situation
with negative impact on the livelihoods of the population.
The numberof foodinsecure householdsinSudanremainshigh,with an estimate of 2.5 to 5 million
people consideredfoodinsecure2
. The analysisof the datacollectedshowsawide fluctuationin the
magnitude and severity of food insecurity for the different years and per location as well. Data for
differentyearsandperstate are not available, however it is estimated that the whole of Darfur, as
well asRedSea State, Kassel andGearedinthe East and Cordovan and Blue Nile inthe South remain
the less food secure in the Country.
1 Despite a bumper harvest the price ofsorghumwas in March2015 45% higher than the 5 years average. Due to increas-
ing prices, amongst other causes, 59% of the households inDarfur earnless thanthe price of the “local foodbasket”.
2 See annex 5 for more details

2. The numberof rural familieslivinginpovertyisextremelyhighdue toeconomical andsocial factors,
including limited access due to insecurity in ample areas of the Country. Exact numbers are Un-
known but are estimated by the VAMon 2 – 2.5 million households!
In addition,the level of under-nutritioniswell above international standards, both for stunting and
wastingratesof under-five children(seeannex 6) aswell as Mid-UpperArm Circumference screen-
ing for pregnant and lactating mothers.
Stunting andwasting of under-five childrenremains alarmingly high countrywide with little differ-
encesbetween rural and urban areas, except from Khartoum where both stunting and wasting are
lower.11 Statesstill have Global Acute MalnutritionorGAMat emergencylevels,fora total of more
than 2 millionchildren considered stunted. The highest stunting rates are found in Kassala (54.6%)
and highestwastingratesinNorth Darfur (28.3%).High stunting is often accompanied by poor sani-
tation facilities and lack of improved sources of drinking water.
As a consequence in Darfurand otherconflict-affectedareas 60-70% of the households are food in-
secure. The region continues to be impacted by internal conflicts and after more than a decade of
conflict, millions of IDP’s continue to reside in urban and pre-urban. Most IDPs live of food aid or
cash voucher with over than 50% of young people grown up in camps not knowing how to practice
agriculture orlivestock. Preliminaryanalysisof the 2014 CFSA (DarfurComprehensive Food Security
Assessment) indicates that the food security has deteriorated substantially across Darfur in all five
Statesand ismost pronouncedinSouthernand Western Darfur, where the population classified as
food secure shrank by 24 and 22 % respectively. Only a third (37%) of the households are found to
be foodsecure.However,Securityandaccessremainsaseriousconcernandare foreseento worsen
if the request from Government of Sudan for an "exit strategy" for UNAMID materialises3
.
Data are scarce for the two southern states of Blue Nile and South Kordofan, where Government
controlsdoesnotextendtothe entire territorywithclashesandfightsmaking access almost impos-
sible. Global stunting and wasting are high according to the 2013 S3Mdata. For Blue Nile stunting
and wasting are 49.8% and 18.5% and for South Kordofan resp. 35.8% and 9.5% while the MUAC %
for women<230mm for bothstatesis 30% and 15%. Internationalpresence is de facto non-existent
and the few organisations with a presence in the areas are faced not only by serious security con-
cerns, but also by the reluctance of Government to grant work/travel permits
Despite easier access and improved security levels, the situation food insecurity remains over the
average forthe three EasternStates, but differencesare registered(RedSeawithhigher prevalence
at 23%-83% food secure in 2012 and Kassala all localities >90% food secure (see Annex 5 VAMdia-
grams). The currentgovernment’sSudanisationpolicy(i.e.phase outINGOandforeignledinterven-
tionsin the East of the country and replace them with national ones) has in the past lead to expul-
sionsof INGOsand workersandmakesthe situationchallenging. Despite the risk,aquite numberof
INGOsare still operating successfully in the three states, making development work easier than in
the other two regions
3 UNAMID is the hybrid missionthat joins the AU andthe UN peacekeepingmission to bringstabilityto the war-tornDarfur
regionof Sudan.

3. 2. Existing and planned interventions in food security
For all interventions the amounts and the areas are specified in annex 5: Interventions EU, ECHO
and member states.
Interventionsinthe areaof improvementof householdfoodandnutritionsecurity are rare and very
scattered, with little coordination and cooperation amongst donors.
 European Union Delegation
In annex 6 the interventions of the EU is listed for Darfur in the area of relief and rehabilitation
througha numberof 15 programmes(amount).Theseprogrammesare mainly support to nutrition,
health,livelihood,natural resources;sustainFS,povertyreduction,andmarket monitoring. The rest
of the country concerns the small support to small scale commercial farmers carried out in the
Statesof Red Sea,Kassala,Gedaref andBlue Nile withacentral technical assistancefromLandell Mill
consultancy by World Vision, GAA/WHH, SOS-Sahel and ZOA (25 million €). The EU is financing 8.6
million € through FAO a food security and capacity programme building programme in four states,
continuation of a previously financed food security information system at federal level. The FAO
supported programme for among others FSTS was a very important. UNICEF was supported with
their emergency nutrition programme (3,350,000 €) for the whole country. WFP was supported by
ECHO through a food assistance programme (14 million €) mainly for Darfur.
ECHO the European Commission’s Humanitarian Office4
ECHO is mainlyfundingpartnersinthe DarfurStates(80% of theirfunding) and three eastern States
withfocuson nutrition(UNICEF),foodassistance (WFP)andsupporttofoodsecurityinterventions –
primary health care, nutrition, NFI for production, WASH etc – through a number of international
NGOs.Humanitarianaccessremainsveryconstrainedinmainparts of Darfur and almost impossible
in the conflict-affected areas in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. Access to new refugees from South
Sudan remains restricted, thus limiting adequate assistance and follow-up.
 UK
The UK is funding a number of 4 of food security related programmes through DFID. Focus is on
agro-economicactivitiesandstudieslinkingsmall andmediumagro producers with commercial and
financial networks. Support (21.9£ in 2014) is provided to WFP voucher programme for Darfur. An-
otherprogramme (1) focusesonthe development of the agriculture private sector for all of Sudan.
 Germany
Fund mainly the sectors of education, health and capacity building and no food security interven-
tions.
 Italy
Italyisdirectly tackling food security though food for work/assets, food for education and food for
trainingactivities(throughWFP) andreducingsevere and acute malnutrition (through UNICEF). On
the other side, the Italian Cooperation has also been working indirectly to tackle food security. In
particular,the recentlystartedPovertyAlleviationProjectforthe Statesof KassalaandRed Sealooks
at enhancingfoodsecuritythroughlivelihoodstrengthening,educationand water management in a
3-yeartimeframe.Some activities are also carried out through FAO in order to enhance livelihoods
of vulnerable farmingandherdinghouseholdersbysupportingagricultural and livestock production
with the aim at contributing to improve food and nutrition security of vulnerable rural people.
4 annex 4 presents 2011-15 ECHO budget for Sudan

4.  Spain
Thismemberstate fundedthe SpanishRed Cross in Gedaref in a programme that aimed to give hu-
manitarian aid for the improvement of nutritional services. (3,850€ and 225,125€ SRC funds).
 The Netherlands
The Netherlandsisnotfundingorimplementing food security or nutrition projects. They can facili-
tate and finance studiesif requested by partners or governmental agencies. Most of the studies fi-
nanced so far are related to agricultural or livestock production or agro economic subjects.
 USAID
USAID's Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) provides timely food security infor-
mationforSudan andother countriesthatallowsdonorstomonitoremergingcrises and respond to
needsearly.USAIDalsosupportsactivitiesthatstrengthenthe abilitiesof Sudanese organizations to
recognize andmanage foodinsecuritythreats. USAIDhasconsistentlybeenthe world'slargestdonor
of food assistance to Sudan. In FY 2013 and FY 2014, USAID provided more than $186.5 million and
$183.7 million respectively for WFP and UNICEF to support food-insecure and vulnerable popula-
tionsinSudanthrough the distribution of emergency food aid, including ready-to-use supplemen-
tary foods, which help improve nutrition among children.
 Federal Ministry of Agriculture
The federal Ministryisthe lead ministry of the Food Security Technical Secretariat (FSTS). The FSTS
should coordinate and link all stakeholders dealing with food security. It produces the yearly ACF-
SAM (agriculture crop, food supply assessment mission) data on agriculture, crops, food supply. It
produces as well Integrated Phase Classification where phase stands for the integration of data of
the Ministriesof Agriculture,AnimalResources,Health,WaterandSocial Protection.This Ministry is
not incharge of any foodsecurityandNutritionprojects.Noinformation is available about their ru-
ral creditprogramme andalsonot abouttheirextensionoffices. Forthisstudythe FSTS department
is of great importance but their role in coordination and information is generally recognized to be
needed improved.
 Federal Ministry of Animal Resources.
Thisministryisinvolvedinall livestockactivitiesnotonlyrelatedtopolicydevelopmentbutalsospe-
cializedinlivestockhealthcontrol andsupport.However,thisministryisnotinvolvedinspecificfood
security programmes except from the livestock components in broader programmes.
 Federal Ministry of Health
This ministry is important for the nutrition part. See report health sector.
 UNDP
UNDP establishedin2014 the national climate change adaptation portfolio by the Ministry of Envi-
ronment (MoE) and the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR). This is
mentioned in order to know better the link between climate change adaption with food security.
ThroughPoverty Reduction andMDGs Interventions(amountin EUR) in Darfur, South Kordofan and
EasternSudan,32,000 people have benefittedfromnew or expandedlivelihoodopportunities using
newdiversifiedagriculturalproductiontechnologies,withover4,000 new jobscreated.Over2.4 mil-
lionof the 3.1 internallydisplacedpeople wereprovidedwithcritical basic services including access
to drinking water and food.
The Darfur CommunityPeace andStabilityFund(DCPSF) wasestablishedin October 2007 as a Multi-
Partner Trust Fund (MPTF). In terms of Food Security and Nutrition income generation and health
activitieswere supported but main activities were related to conflict resolution and reconciliation
mechanisms. Main concern was a central coordination of activities5
.
5 One aidworker calledit as “Everybodytook care of his or her tree but nobodytook care ofthe forest”.

5.  OCHA
The Common Humanitarian Fund for South Sudan was set up in 2012. It is a ‘pooled
fund’ channellingover27millionUS$to NGOs andensuringthe effective implementationof projects
in collaboration with OCHA and UN sector leads.
 WFP
WFP’s traditional mandate is combating hunger. It is the main distributor of food aid in the emer-
gencyareas suchas in the five Darfur States and for the eastern emergency situations in the States
of Red Sea, Kassala and Gedaref. From the 1st
of July 2015 it aims to realise the transition towards
food and nutrition security for conflict affected and chronically vulnerable population through its
Protected Relief and Recovery Operation Sudan 200808. This PRRO aims to reach 5,220,000 benefi-
ciaries and to distribute 493,256 MT of food. The total costs are 693,274,155 US$. N.B. For staff is
allocated 72,721,231 US$ or 10.4% of the total budget. The last EMOP or emergency operation was
for a period of 12 months in 2014 extension total amount of 626,765,286 US$ for a total beneficiar-
ies of 5,330,000. Locations are Central, Eastern and Three Areas (CETA) and the five Darfur States.
It isalso involvedinnew programmesaimingtocombat hunger and poverty through distribution of
cash vouchers,strengtheningresilience of livelihood in the rehabilitation phase or post emergency
situation.
The VulnerabilityAnalysisandMappingunit(VAM) iscollectingdataon malnutritionbutdoesalsoin
assessments to identify the number of food insecure households (see annex 4) .
The generally extremely high costs of intervention are justified by the fact that very remote areas
are involvedandworkhasto be achieved under high risks. For the new PRRO the general costs per
beneficiary are 140 US$ and 1,400 US$ per MT.
 FAO
FAOplaysan important role in support of the FSTS both technically and financially (project is 100%
financedbyEUD). FAOisinvolvedinstrengtheningdata collection capacity at States level (Red Sea,
Kassala,Gedaref andBlue Nile) onfoodsecuritythroughitsfoodsecurityandlivelihoods sector and
has intensivetechnical collaborationwiththe MoA,MoARand MoH The importance of thistechnical
assistance isgenerallyrecognizedbutitseffectiveness and impact is still a concern of certain stake-
holders. Therefore this must be a point of attention. The number of direct beneficiaries is not
known.
 UNICEF
UNICEF playsanimportantrole inall nutritionrelatedactivities in Sudan in particular the treatment
of severe acute malnutrition. It collaborates intensively with the MoH in nutrition. The Sudan S3M
nutrition assessment was piloted by UNICEF and the MoH (see chapter 1). The importance of the
S3M nutrition assessment is generally recognized. About its quality and representativeness no in-
formation is available. UNICEF Sudan is present in 15 states including Darfur. In 2013 its annual
budget was $38,066,823. Beneficiaries are mainly children but indirectly. UNICEF works mainly
throughthe MoH and a numberof INGO’s.Statistical information UNICEF gives dates from the time
North and South Sudan were still united.
 INGO’s
There isa greatnumberof INGO’sworkinginSudan.Annex 5 indicates the INGO’s benefitting of EU
and ECHO fundingandalsotheirlocalityof operation.The nationalNGO’sare ingeneral small of size
and limitedintheircapacityof implementation.Mainproblems for INGO’s are the access to remote
and neededareas.The more the federal government’spolicyof sudanisationmakesintervention for
foreignNGO’smore difficult.Inthisdocumentthe namesof EU involvedINGO’sare mentioned. The
HAC or HumanitarianActivityCommissioncoordinates the activities of all NGO interventions in Su-
dan!

6. 3. Prioritisation of needs within the sector.
a. Geographical prioritisation. Twoimportantsourcesof data relatedtohouseholdfoodandnutri-
tionsecurityare the S3M Nutritional data(global stunting,global wasting, mother’s undernour-
ishment, improved sanitation facility, improved source of drinking water) in annex 6 and the
VAMproducedmappingof the %of foodinsecure households in annex 4. The VAMannexes in-
dicate mainly the data where WFP is operation for the number of food insecure households.
Generallyspokenthe mayorneedsare inthe five Darfurstatesdespite its emergency character,
inthe twoEasternStatesof RedSea andKassala(real needscausedbynature made emergency)
and in the Southern States of Blue Nile and the Kordofan States (difficult access). This means
that those states are a priority in terms of needs and not the whole country. On federal level
prioritymaybe givento the strengthening of the FSTS as a coordinating and information entity
with support of specialized UN agencies.
b. Need to practise the concept of resilience and LRRD. Recent and recurrent food crises in the
Sahel region and in the Horn of Africa have underscored the need to work on a long-term and
systematicapproachtobuildthe resilience of vulnerable countriesandpopulations.Building re-
silience isalong-termeffortthatneedstobe firmlyembeddedinnational policiesand planning.
It is a part of the development process, and genuinely sustainable development will need to
tackle the root causes of recurrent crises rather than just their consequences. The consequent
implementation of a LRRD approach is evident for optimal guarantee of long-term impact. The
experience of ongoing activities of partners such as WFP, ZOA, WHH, SOS-Sahel but also agen-
cies not mentioned here in the field of resilience and LRRD is of great importance.
c. Needfor coordinationand information.The FSTS is within the Government a central unity that
collectsdataand producesupdatedinformationdocumentson production and market prices. It
alsoproducesa numberof periodical documentsonfood production. However the information
isstill notreaching all the involved partners and the secretariat unable to coordinate and plan.
An importantrole fora strengthenedFSTS could be foreseen after an optimisation assessment
of activitiesandexpectedresults.However,itmustbe notedthatthe FSTS has alwaysbeen fully
donordrivenwithhighcosts(currentlyfor4 statesthe cost is of 8.5 million€).Despite the donor
dependencythe qualityof the FSTS can be improved substantially. As long as this entity is fully
donordrivensustainabilityisnotguaranteed.Alternativesdonotexistwhilethe needisevident.
d. Needfor synergybetween foodsecurity,livelihoodandhealth sectors. Synergyof the food and
nutritionsecuritysectorisrequiredwiththe sectorsof livelihoodandhealth.Foodsecurity from
the conceptual pointof viewisinfact a part of the whole livelihoodconcept.Since the attention
paidfor nutritioninthe conceptof foodand nutrition security nutrition is also an essential part
of itand foodsecurityispart of the livelihoodanyform of synergy between the three sectors is
evident.Nutritiondeals with agriculture – agro nutrition – and with health – medical nutrition!
Thisexplainsforexample the synergy between the FS and the health sector. Nutrition surveil-
lance of under-five childrenandmotherisanessential partof the FS sectorbut isonlyfeasible if
adequate health facilities and trained health workers with sufficient equipment are available.
This is in many remote areas not the case.
e. Need for an integrated approach built on the household approach and integrating the Resili-
ence concept. The needsof activitiesingeneral–areas are differentandsome of the listed pro-

7. posals do not make sense in some places - for an integrated food security and nutrition pro-
gramme to be prioritised are:
 Cereal production:soil improvement,improvedseeds,improved planting,improved storing,
improved marketing etc. at what level? Small/medium holders? justify
 Gardening: introduction of gardening for improved home consumption, marketing, small
scale irrigation, pest control, simple transformation etc.
 Savings and micro-credits;
 Food storage on household and community level;
 Food transformation activities: cheese, other milk products, dried fruits, dried fish etc. for
what? Marketing or consumption?
 Fruittreesand tree planting:mainlyasaneconomicactivitybutalso forhome consumption,
transformation technology and marketing.
 Anti erosion work: as part of soil improvement, water catchment etc.
 Livestockimprovementetc.: poultry, funds for recovery, if necessary vaccination, drying of
meat etc. consumption or marketing?
 WASH: all elements of WASH in order to supply potable water and improve hygiene at
household level;
 Women’s organisation and training: is the most effective way of introducing IG activities,
small loans, improved child care, improved nutrition, WASH and all kind of training;
 Integrationof nutritionandhealth:improve accesstohealthfacilitiesandif theyhardlyexist
for the poorest of the communities to look for alternatives (health sector with help of the
MoH and UNICEF);
 IGA activitiesforwomen’sgroups;improveincomesof womencombinedwithtraining;what
kind of activities?
 Nutrition activities with mothers: improve weaning practices, fortified weaning food etc.
 Anthropometrical surveillance of all under-five children (age, weight, length);
 Regular MUAC control of mothers; this is not an activity!
 Lookingfortreatmentforsevere malnourished case with help of the MoH and UNICEF. this
is food aid not food security
 Safety net programmes, including conditional and unconditional cash transfers6
.
N.B.Prioritisingof needsdependheavily on locality and the facts found through detailed base-
line studies!Anotherfactorthatmakesprioritisationnecessarybecauseof the limited resources
available and therefore
f. Needfor productivityimprovement.Productivityimprovement of yields should not be for-
gottensince itworksdirectlyonthe availability but also availability of food for household. If prices
are also in a reasonable way stable the producer will benefit of it being guaranteed of a stable in-
come.Householdswithsmall surfacesof landmayalsobenefitof productivityimprovementbutonly
ina limitedway. The VAMof WFP doesinitshouseholdfoodavailabilityassessmentsanalysis if this
is evident. However, the number of households that do not have land do not benefit of this. The
number of households that have no access to land is not known. FSTS is the ideal entity to follow
these developments in a structured way. N.B. The EU funds in 4 States programmes that aim to im-
prove food productivity of middle class producers through 4 INGO’s.
6 This is a keyactivityfor resilience buildinginearlyrecoveryandself-reliance.

8. 4. Recommendationfor interventionsincludingEUvalue addition,integratingcross cuttingissues
including conflict sensitivity and environment implications of proposed actions and gender
dimensions.
The followingrecommendationsare outlinedtakingintoaccountthe specificcrosscuttingissuesand
addedvalue forthe EU and itsmemberstates.Prioritisationof recommendationsisneededbecause
of the limited resources available.
General Recommendations:
1. Concentration of interventions: In order to achieve maximum impact, it is recommended to
concentrate interventionsinafewprojectswithafew implementingpartners.Building on exist-
ingprogrammesandcooperationismostrecommended.Therefore it is strongly recommended
to strengthenthe small scale agricultureintervention support programme with ZOA, SOS-Sahel
and Welthungerhilfeandinclude amore householdfocussedelement that deals with nutrition,
health,IGA,nutritional surveillance of youngchildrenandmothers,gardening,small animals re-
stocking etc. activities.
2. Buildupon existinginitiativesandpolicy frameworks. We referto the National Comprehensive
Foodand NutritionSecurityPoliciesdocumentof March 2015 preparedbythe FSTS in collabora-
tion with the EU and the FAO. The European Union has funded several agriculture production
projectsoverthe lastyears.The interventionthroughsupportof commercial smallholders’ agri-
culture producersisan example.Howeverthisprogramme is not a FSN programme is can easily
be extended to a full FSN approach also for other areas. It is not so straight forward to just add
householdandnutritioninterventionsbutthe model can be used with certain adaptations. Fur-
thermore they justtargeta fewscatteredareas.These programmes were implemented by ZOA
in Gedaref, Welhungerhilfe – former German Agro Action – in Kassala and by SOS-Sahel in the
Red Sea State. Welthunger Hilfe also implements a livelihood programme in Lagawa in West
KordofanState andan early recovery programme in North Darfur. All these programmes works
inagriculture,livestockandlivelihood.Enrichingtheseprogrammeswith a more household and
nutritionapproachmakesthemmore complete andcanbe consideredashouseholdfoodsecuri-
ty and nutrition programmes.
3. Strengthenof federal and state coordinationand informationentities:coordination in the sec-
tor of food security and nutrition is experienced by most stakeholders as weak. Information
basedon reliableandqualitative goodinformationof all kindof foodsecurityand nutrition indi-
cators isthe basisfora properpolicydevelopment. Coordination and information is the task of
the Governmentof Sudanwithsupportfromspecializedorganisations such as specialized agen-
cies of the UN such as WFP, FAO, UNICEF and WHO. The current FSTS plays that role already
more or lessbutimprovementandprofessionalization are most required. The high costs are al-
readymentioned.Strengtheningthisentitywith technical and also financial support from WFP,
FAOand UNICEF isan optionbutfirstof all a detailedandindependent evaluation looking at all
these issues are highly recommended.
4. Complementarity and synergies: This new cycle of projects must be built on the existing pro-
jects,analysingthe addedvalue of the EuropeanUnionincomplementaritywiththe EUMember
Statesand otheraidagencies,developmentandhumanitarianinstitutions. An evaluation of the
current EU-funded projects can determine what can be done better, what deserves to be con-
tinued and which new projects the EU will support. This evaluation should include a detailed
analysisof the complementarityamongEUactionsin foodsecurityandnutrition,especiallywith
the projectsthat are currentlyunderimplementation,the synergies also with other EU member
states donors and the synergies with the other sectors (health, education, livelihood and eco-
nomic development).

9. 5. Sustainability:Animportantconstraintfeltbysome agencies(mainly INGO partners) is that the
EU is trying to combine a long-term development approach in food security and nutrition with
only3-yearfundingcycles.Therefore,projects approved in this new cycle should try to have an
impactin at least 5 year project cycle (2016-2021) and preferably 10 year funding in order to be
sure of any sustainability approach. N.B. the funding cycle must not be confused with the PCM
approach.The EUD’s policyisthat itcan easilyhave longerprojectsdespite the shortfunding cy-
cle.
6. Geographical focus:the EU interventionsshouldfocusonthose stateswhere the EU has experi-
ence,where the real needsare,where potential partners are already implementing but in gen-
eral where accessisguaranteed.It must also be mentioned that the situation is very volatile in
terms of political situation and where conflicts are. It must be clear that intervention is most
needed where the food security and nutrition indicators are the worst, namely Darfur (North,
West, East and South) and states in East Sudan (Kassala, Red Sea and Gedaref) but also the
Statesof Blue Nile andthe Statesof Kordofan.Because of theirworse ratesinstuntingandwast-
ing, interventions should focus on rural areas, especially in Darfur. Also the eastern states,
where the conflictorthe poor climaticsituation has made it impossible for most of the popula-
tionto have normal access to basicfoodare of great importance.However,some activitiescould
be implemented in other states with higher rates of food insecure households and also high
stunting and wasting but this option must be considered as a long term.
EU added value: The importance of ongoing activities by a number of INGO's from the EU member
states that receive EU and ECHO funding jointly with their local partners and state government
agenciesmustbe recognizedasanEU addedvalue. An extra EU added value is their experience on
FoodSecurityinothercountriesinAfricaingeneral andinthe Sahel inparticular.Alsomust be men-
tionedthe experience inprofessional monitoringsystemsonfoodsecurity,nutritionandearly warn-
ingsystems.InSudanthe technical expertise certainmemberstatesof the EU have is much appreci-
ated and can be a useful tool for intervention.
Regarding the cross cutting issues in food security and nutrition interventions:
 To avoid radicalisation, food security and nutrition programmes - and employment on the
side due to rural development - will reduce the pool of discontented young people where
extremistsare findingsupport. Please ratherelaborate onthe fact that better food security
 To avoid migration: Food security and nutrition programmes must support IDPs in Darfur
and refugeesinthe East.Migrationcan onlybe avoidedif people have hope and also future
throughjobcreationinthe whole agriculture sector but for food and nutrition security also
the healthsector.Accessto andavailabilitytogoodfood – that is the objective of foodsecu-
rity– combinedwithaguarantee forgoodfacilitiesforchild care etc. is a way to make peo-
ple less motivated to leave their place of origin. With a better nourished people and eco-
nomical improvement,people will have more chancesto find an employment and less peo-
ple will migrate to Europe.
 To build on resilience:more studyonresilience mechanismsmustbe carried out in order to
understand in a better way how resilience can contribute to improve early recovery pro-
grammes.The WFP has starteda special researchunitonthissubjectandall involved stake-
holders in the field in LRRD recognise it.
 To integrate a genderapproach: the householdfoodsecurity and nutrition approach focus-
eson interventionsthroughwomen’s groups in particular with special attention for IGA ac-

10. tivitiesforwomen,trainingskillsfora broad package of skills and special attention for child
care and child nutrition. This is also well known by experienced agencies.
5. An assessment of risks, limitations.
 Access difficulties including both physical and political constraints for development activities.
Thisconstraintis linked with the GoS policy of Sudanisation but also the risk of expelling INGO
implementation will be difficult. However this issue might be a concern we have now evidence
thatmonitoring from the HQ in Khartoum is also feasible (only case is WHH). However, this case
must be verified by field based evidence. If no access for expatriates is possible the EU cannot
work there. EUD has rules about not working in development in areas where expatriate staff is
not allowed. This is among others the case for the Blue Nile state.
 Qualityof monitoring. Onehasto take into account that actually proper M&E is one of the main
problemsfaced by internationalNGO'sand UN Agenciesin Sudan,raising serious quality and ac-
countability issues.
 Radicalisation, armed conflicts or isolation can threat the implementation.
This risk is not predictable depending on the development in the region but also on the peace
talks. If the international community has to “embrace” the current government in power more
field work will be possible. It means practically that certain areas will be out of reach.
 Commitment from donor’s side.
If a new policy frominternationaldonorsbecomeseffective more chances will be feasible but for
the time being most interventions remain limited.
 Huge migration from neighbouring countries and abroad.
Both immigration and emigration have to be considered.
 Recurrentdroughts.We have to include the climate change phenomenon that also plays a role
and make environmental programmes etc. desirable.
 Large scale-displacedpopulation: makes early recovery impossible. We refer here also to the mi-
gration constraint.
 Highspikesof food pricesinSudan: hasan enormousinfluenceon thepurchasepowerof families
except from ideal and optimal access to markets for small holders of food producers. This con-
cerns local but also more national development of prices.
6. An assessment of potential implementation partners, consideration of the implementation
modality.
Governmentof Sudan: It is impossible to work at central level for political reasons. It must also be
mentioned that the available resources for the EU under this situation are limited. This has to do
with the political willingness.

11. UN family: The agenciesof the UN have onlypartial accessto the rural areasin the different states.
The costs of theirinterventionisquite highcomparedtothe INGO’s.Theyworkonfederal level with
ministriesandtheirpresence inthe field is limited except from WFP. They work mostly through in-
ternational and national NGO’s. However their weak points mentioned it is necessary to consider
them as implementing partners but only on specific activities that must be well monitored.
INGO: A great number of international NGO’s are present in the field but their work is mainly in
emergencyorearlyrecoveryoperations.Theirpresence inthe fieldisof greatimportance butdue to
the federal government’s policy of sudanisation not very sustainable. A number of international
NGO’s have already been expulsed.
Local NGOs: Are verysustainable but weak in capacity and small in operational activities. They are
ideal partnersforUN agenciesandINGO’stowork withbutalsostronglypoliticallycontrolledby the
federal government.
Considering the implementation modalities it must be stated that neither are the INGOs for many
years now real field implementers. They are also required to work with / through local NGO's or
CBOs. Recent modification of national Technical Agreement for projects to be implemented re-
emphasized this trend, by requesting the implementing partner to be co-signing this document.

12. ANNEX 1: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
1. Terms of Reference mission.
2. Memo EU for working group reports.
3. National comprehensive foodandnutritionsecuritypolicies. FSTS in collaboration with EU/FAO
project: FS policy and strategy; capacity programme, March 2015.
4. Sudan –conflict Analysis Workshop report, Khartoum 12 Nov. 2014 – minutes.
5. Various WFP reports, including new PRRO request and all VAMpublications, Nutrition depart-
ment, Resilience strategy etc.
6. WFP presentation – From relief to recovery.
7. WFP EMOP BUDGET INCREASE TO EMERGENCY OPERATION (EMOP) SUDAN 200597 (Budget Re-
vision No. 3).
8. M3S Nutrition Baseline report: 2014 – tables etc.
9. EU, ECHO and Member States table of activities.
10. ZOA annual report 2013.
11. DFIC: WFP, UNICEF & FAO JOINT RESILIENCE PROGRAMME IN KASSALA STATE, EASTERN SUDAN
12. Map: Sudan Food and Nutrition Security EU, ECHO and member states April 2015.
13. COMMISSION DECISION of 11.12.2013 on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of the
mostvulnerable populationinSudantobe financedfromthe recommitmentof EDF funds under
the STABEX instrument.
14. Sudan National Human Development report 2012 UNDP.
15. Economic Report on Sudan March 2015 EUD.
16. ECHO Factsheet Republic of Sudan February 2015.

13. ANNEX 2: ACRONYMS
CBO Community Based Organisation
CFSA Comprehensive Food Security Assessment
DCPSF Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund
DFID Department for International Development – Government of the UK
ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Office
EU European Union
EUD European Union Delegation to the Republic of Sudan
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN
FSTS Food Security Technical Secretariat
GAA German Agro Action now Welt Hunger Hilfe
GAM Global Acute Malnutrition
GDP Gross DomesticProduct
GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit – German Government
GoS Government of Sudan
HIP Humanitarian Implementation Plan
ICC International Criminal Court
IDP Internal Displaced People
ILO International Labour Organisation
INGO International Non Governmental Organisation
IPC Integrated Phase Classification
LFB Local Food Basket
MAM Moderate Acute Malnutrition
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MENA Middle East and North Africa
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MoAR Ministry of Animal Resources
MoH Ministry of Health
MUAC Mid Upper Arm Circumference
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
NNGO National Non Governmental Organisation
ODA Official Development Assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
PMU Programme Management Unit
S3M Simple Spatial Survey Methodology
SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition
SCF save the Children Fund
SMoA State Ministry of Agriculture
SPCRP Sudan Productive Capacity Recovery Programme
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
UK United Kingdom
VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping
WASH Water and Sanitation and Health
WFP World Food Programme
WHH Welt Hunger Hilfe was German Agro Action

14. ANNEX 3: PEOPLE INTERVIEWED AND/OR MET DURING THE MISSION IN SUDAN.
organisation name position
1 EU Jose Maria TRONCOSO PERERA Head of Section
2 EU Cosimo Lamberti FOSSATI Programme Manager
3 EU Umberto AMBROSI Programme Manager
4 EU Mysa Programme Manager
5 EU Maria Luisa Head of Section
6 EU Francesca Programme Manager
7 ECHO Jean Marc JOUINEAU Field expert
8 WFP Adnan Khan Country Director
9 WFP Margot van der Velden Deputy Country Director
10 WFP Marc Andre Prost Head of Nutrition Unit
11 WFP Anders Petersson Head of VAM
12 WFP Filippo MINOZZI Head of Resilience PM
13 WFP Kate CAREY Donor relations & Policy
14 MoA-FSTS Hamza Abdalla SIROR Food Security analyst FSTS
15 Embassy Nl Susan BLANKHART H.E. Ambassador
16 Embassy Nl Esther Loeff deputy CdP
17 Embassy Nl Jurrien Norder 2n secr.
18 Apost. Nuncio Bert van MEGEN H.E. nuncio
19 Embassy Sw Mattias ANDEREGG humanitarian adviser
20 Embassy GB Ian BYRAM DFID humanitarian adviser
21 Embassy Italy Anna DE PALMA Programme Off.
22 Embassy Sw. Anna GUILLET first secretary
23 UNOPS Chabib BELHASSAN Head of Mission
24 OCHA Jean VERHEYDEN deputy Head of Office
25 Landell Mills Abdul Hamid RHAMETALLA assistant Team Leader
26 ZOA Tim RAE Country Director
27 ZOA Ida MUNCK Operational Manager
28 ZOA Timmo Gaasbeek Operational Manager
29 WHH Ivan ZENAR Country Director
30 WHH Lennaert LEHMANN Head of Programme Lagawa
30 SCF Rahed CHAUDARY Country Director
31 SCF Lily Phan Head Programme
32 SCF El Badawi, Ali Nasr Head of health programme
33 SCF Hassan Osman Head of livelihood program
34 FAO Charles Agobla Chief technical adviserSPCRP
35 FAO Wolde Deboch FS&L
36 SOS Sahel Salih Eldhouma Country Director

15. ANNEX 4: Household Food Security data from different States and years.
1. Food security in Darfur 2011 – 2014
2. Food security in Blue Nile 2014
3. Food Security in South Kordofan, May 2014

16. 4. Food security in North Kordofan, 2012
5. Food security in Kassala, 2012
6. Food security in Red Sea state, 2012

17. ANNEX 5: Interventions EU, ECHO and member states!

18. DEU intervention in FS and/or nutrition.
Darfur Relief & Rehabilitation etc.
1. Improving nutrition through nutrition humanitarian response UNICEF 2,000,000
2. Improving livelihood and natural resources (water + livelihood) UNOPS 4,700,000
3. Improving livelihood and natural resources (water + soil) UNEP 6,700,000
4. Integrated emergency primary health care and nutrition IMC-UK 1,520,000
5. Integrated humanitarian reasons for communities in conflict Tear Fund 1,400,000
6. Improving livelihood and natural resources (water + soil) UNEP 6,700,000
7. Sustaining FS and livelihoods CRS 1,300,000
8. Improved FS recovering from conflicts WV 1,000,000
9. Relief to rehabilitation FS and livelihoods WR 1,000,000
10. Support to food insecure nomads and sedentary COOPI 1,000,000
11. Towards improved FS and livelihoods TGN 1,000,000
12. Improving FS and vulnerable conflict affected HH Concern 1,000,000
13. Community based market monitoring SOS-Sahel 1,000,000
14. Health and nutrition GRC 500,000
15. Integrated humanitarian response Tear Fund 1,350,000
Small scale agriculture production programme (sorgum and livestock)
16. Small scale agriculture production WV 5,550,000 Blue
17. Small scale DWH 5,550,000 Kassa
18. Small scale ZOA 5,000,000 Geda
19. Small scale SOS-Sahel 5,000,000 Red S
20. TA etc. to small scale agriculture production 16 -19 Landell Mill 3,800,000 Blue
UN agencies general
21. Food security and capacity building programme FAO 8,600,000 all
22. Emergency nutrition Sudan UNICEF 3,350,000 all
23. Food assistance WFP 14,000,000 all

19. Annex 6: S3M data UNICEF 20137
Rural
State
Rural
Global stunting Global wasting Mothers undernour-
ished MUAC <230mm
Improved sanitation
facility
Improved source
of drinking water
KEY >30% >15% >15% >50% <50%
Red Sea 45.5 20.2 29.6 44.1 27.9
Kassala 54.6 15.2 13.4 13.0 13.1
Gedaref 52.0 13.2 8.5 4.0 46.0
Blue Nile 49.8 18.5 19.1 73.3 84.9
Kordofan S 35.8 9.5 23.7 4.1 61.4
KordofanW 36.7 12.7 13.9 8.7 28.6
Kordofan N 41.6 12.1 11.3 2.0 35.8
White Nile 39.1 8.6 9.9 3.3 31.8
Semnar 32.6 12.8 11.8 9.5 46.4
El Gezira 36.4 9.6 3.0 16.2 86.9
Khartoum 20.2 8.2 6.3 47.9 90.4
Northern 29.4 7.3 10.8 52.4 90.7
River Nile 28.4 15.2 4.8 39.9 68.8
N Darfur 35.2 28.3 26.2 12.9 60.4
S Darfur 24.5 18.3 13.0 2.2 47.4
E Darfur 39.9 14.9 12.2 7.9 12.7
W Darfur 34.8 8.4 4.8 5.1 34.5
C Darfur 44.9 12.7 15.5 9.6 55.9
Urban
Town
Urban
Global stunt-
ing
Global wasting Mothers undernour-
ished MUAC <230mm
Improved sanitation
locality
Improved source
of drinking water
KEY >30% >15% >15% >50% <50%
Khartoum 11.6 7.7 3.2 82.0 88.4
Port Sudan 34.3 13.8 14.0 73.9 25.5
Kassala town 33.9 15.2 5.7 52.1 58.4
El Fashir 36.0 16.5 12.8 48.1 59.2
Table 2: Under nutrition trends in under five children: stunting and underweight for all under five ages!
Source: adapted from VAM/WFP data
7
These figures come fromthe last UNICEF SudanS3M2013 Core Indicator results bylocality. It is considered as the most
detaileddata source. The national Simple SpatialSurveying Methodology(S3M) surveywas carriedout to collect detailed
and current data onnutrition status andother health, water and sanitationvariables that may affect nutrition status to
ensure a strong evidence-base for expansionof multi-sectorial services to combat malnutrition. The S3Mmethodologywas
chosen becauseof its abilityto give detailedinformation for small geographical areas – results are available at sub-locality
level for this survey – and its ability to map results making targeting of interventions possible.
20
32
32
35
0
20
40
60
80
1986/87 2010
Percentage
prevalence
Stunting
Underweight

20. Table 8: Food security in Darfur 2011 – 2014