government of southern sudan south …s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ government of southern sudan...

1

GOVERNMENT OF SOUTHERN SUDAN

SOUTH SUDAN COMMISSION FOR CENSUS STATISTICS

AND EVALUATION (SSCCSE)

First Livelihood Analysis Forum (LAF) Meeting Proceeding

1st -3

rd, April 2009.

Compiled by Department of Monitoring & Evaluation

2

Draft Livelihoods Analysis Forum (LAF) Minutes

Background

The first quarter of the Livelihoods Analysis Forum (LAF) was conducted

from 1st - 3

rd April 2009 at the Toto Chan Centre for child trauma in Juba. It

was coordinated by the Southern Sudan Commission for Census, Statistics

and Evaluation (SSCCSE) with support from the Sudan Institutional

Capacity programme: Food Security Information for Action (SIFSIA)

project. The LAF forum is used in supporting and brings together GOSS

institutions, UN agencies, NGOs, Community based organizations and all

stakeholders as a means of strengthening national capacity in livelihoods

analysis and consolidating existing information on livelihoods and food

security in Southern Sudan. This forum will provide government institutions

and partners on capacity building in food security data collection and

analytical framework, and help train new participants in the use of the IPC

tool to classify the current and emergent situation in Southern Sudan, and to

chart a possible way forward in terms of the next cycle of analysis.

The IPC training was facilitated by resource person from the Food Security

Technical Secretariat FSTS in the Commission for Census Statistics and

Evaluation. This was an important forum that helped in enhancing data and

information sharing and food security analysis capacity of field level

technical personnel. The IPC tool was used in the analysis sessions.

Opening Remarks

The meeting was officially opened by Mr Adwok Chol Awur, Director for

Census and Survey, on behalf of the Chairman of the SSCCSE who had

commitments. In his opening remarks, he mentioned the importance of LAF

and encouraged the participants to have in-depth deliberations of the food

security issues in Southern Sudan and come up with clear recommendations.

Before declaring the forum open, he apologized for not continuing with the

sessions due to pressing issues at his office. On the other hand Mr. Philip

Dau the deputy director, M&E and the coordinator of the forum briefed the

participants on the importance of the forum in enhancing exchange of food

3

security and livelihood related information and the challenges encountered

in the last fourth forum. He encouraged the participants to commit

themselves fully and come out with useful information that can help the

Government in taking right decisions. He then asked the participants to

individually introduce themselves.

Participation In comparison to the previous forums, this particular forum had more NGO

and GOSS ministries participation. The participants at GOSS level included

the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Animal Resources and

Fisheries, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Cooperatives and Rural

Development, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the SSCCSE. Unlike

the December workshop this workshop had good participation from all states

except for Upper Nile and there was significant improvement in the data

collected that gave confidence in the analysis. At the State level, the

participating government institution was the Ministry of Agriculture and

Animal Resources and Fisheries. From NGOs and UN agencies; Concern

Worldwide, JICA, ACF (US), Intermon Oxfam, Oxfam GB, CRS, World

Vision, FAO and WFP participated in the forum.

Presentations made at the meeting: These presentations cover overview of nutrition situation, market trends,

CFSAM results, agro metrological situation, ANLA results and food security

and livelihoods situation analysis in Southern Sudan by the use of the IPC

Role of Nutrition Information By Victoria Eluzai, D/G of Nutrition, MOH

This presentation highlighted the role of nutrition information as an outcome

indicator that measures the impact of many sectors that include health, food

security, economic development, education and others. To have a good

analysis of nutrition situation, all other indicators are to be mapped and

correlated to the nutrition out comes.

Considering the nutrition situation in Southern Sudan, the presenter pointed

out that there was lack of nutrition data and the available data is from

localised surveys from NSCSE/UNICEF MICS and SHHS that showed

alarming Gam rate of 22%, Stunting as 45%, underweight 48% and severe

underweight of 21%. Several Micronutrient deficiencies and women’s

nutrition were identified, although data was lacking.

4

The presenter sited challenges in the directorate which were attributed to

several factors some of which are that the NGOs run the show and

government institutions have not put in place a clear policy for regulation of

data collection procedures although the MOH research unit is operational, it

need to be made more visible and have stronger coordination with mandated

institutions. In addition qualified data specialist with relevant experience is

lacking leading to weak capacity in collection, storage and analysis of data at

central and state level

As a way forward the directorate intends to standardize survey

methodologies through collaboration with FANTA and SIFSIA, it will

continue to proactively work with partners to improve planning for

collection, interpretation and utilization of nutrition data. In collaboration

with ACF-USA and other partner – piloting sentinel sites for nutrition

surveillance in Upper Nile, the directorate also continues to implement

agreed targets with SIFSIA.

Current Nutrition Situation in Southern Sudan By Kelly Delaney, ACF International Network

In January 2009, ACF was provided by Nutritional anthropometric surveys

for national analysis of trends by health and nutrition partners in which 13

surveys were submitted, 11 of which used SMART methodology. These

surveys were done in 12 counties in 5 states (3 Warrap, 3 Jonglei, 3

UpperNile, 1 Unity, 3 Northern Bahr el Ghazal)

The results of 2008 Nutrition trends showed that GAM average is 19.6% and

SAM average is 2.2% showing a very slight increase from 2007 (0.1%

increase for both GAM and SAM). GAM has consistently remained above

the 15% emergency level, while SAM is below the 4% emergency cut off

point (as per Sphere Standards). And there has not been any significant

improvement in the nutrition status of under 5’s since the signing of the

CPA.

In the analysis of malnutrition trends of Malakal site, the results showed that

Malnutrition starts to pick up in September and the highest prevalence rates

are experienced between November and March. Household access to food is

limited by low incomes and high cost of living and Poor access to safe

drinking water and use of household latrines plays a significant role in the

levels of acute malnutrition. The MOH and ACF TFC/SC intervention since

5

Nov 2008 resulted in stabilization of SAM, despite increase in GAM

however there is No significant change in maternal and care practices since

2007, which appears to be a key cause of acute malnutrition in Malakal.

2009 Trends Admissions in ACF therapeutic feeding programs in Warrap and Northern

Bhar El Ghazal States has been steadily rising since November, 2008.The

rapid increase in admissions is attributed to 3 key things which are acute

watery diarrhea outbreaks in both locations, poor harvest in 2008, with most

household food supplies now empty and increased community involvement

in the identification and referral of acutely malnourished children. Gogrial

West Nutrition Survey in February 2009, showed results of GAM 20.1%

(17.4-22.8%) and SAM 2.4% (1.2 -3.5) Z-score.

Final Remarks

The nutrition situation for children under 5 years of age remains unchanged

since the signing of the CPA. And malnutrition is a multifaceted problem

which requires interventions from food security livelihoods, health and

nutrition, and water and sanitation sectors. It is therefore essential that

strategies to address moderate malnutrition, both treatment and prevention,

are revisited. The trends in 2009 are pointing to a particularly bad hunger

gap this year.

CFSAM Results for 2008 By Elijah Mukhala, Information Systems & Capacity Building Specialist –

SIFSIA

FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM) were

conducted in Southern Sudan from 6 to 26 October 2008 to estimate cereal

production and assess the overall food supply situation. The Mission

included representatives from GOSS Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

(MoAF), Southern Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (SSRRC),

European Union’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) FEWSNet, World Food

Programme and Food and Agriculture Organisation.

In the assessment, it was absorbed that agricultural inputs were adequately

supplied by FAO and NGO implementing partners, although financial

assistance was still lacking. Rainfall generally had a good start but checks in

6

May probably slowed performance of the early planted maize and short-

cycle sorghums in most areas. There was no widespread replanting but gap

filling by transplanting practised regularly to overcome patchiness in

germination from dry-spell that affected most areas except West and Central

Equatoria. There was average or better growth and development from late

June onwards and an improved crop performance.

In 2008 the Mission adjusted the consumption estimates upwards to a range

from 80 kg to 120 kg per caput per annum to take into account greater areas

under cultivation to cereals per household and higher yields in larger

catchments in addition to more cash in circulation as a result of greater

circulation of people selling cereals per household. There is also changing

dietary practices, particularly influenced by returnees.

In conclusion there were favourable rainfall in the whole Southern Sudan

which has increased crops yield in some States with relatively few outbreaks

of pests and diseases. The increase in cereal harvest was also due to increase

in returnees population that resulted in an above average cereal harvest of

about 1.25 million tones compared to 86,000 tones in 2007. There was also a

satisfactory livestock and pasture condition that prevailed over most of

Southern Sudan.

Overview of market price trends

By Yergalem T. Beraki, Food Security Analyst SIFSIA and Elijah Luak

Deng Inspector of Marketing MAF,GOSS

Cereal Prices – Sorghum Sorghum price in most markets in Southern Sudan have shown a downward

movement since November/December 2008 and starts picking up slightly in

March 2009 in markets other than Juba. The price in Juba market dropped

persistently since December 2008, by 28 percent between December 2008

and March 2009. Similar trend was observed in Bor, Aweil, Malakal, and

Wau where sorghum price continuously declined between December 2008

and February 2009, but were in smaller margins than in Juba (in Aweil and

Malakal by less than 10 percent and in Wau and Bor by about 15 percent).

The prices in Malakal were relatively stable and lower than other markets,

mainly as a result of its favourable trade route with markets in Northern part

of Sudan and its geographical proximity to major sorghum growing

mechanised farms (Renk)

7

Maize price Maize price has shown mixed trend in different markets, while it persistently

increased since December 2008 in Bor, it has showed a reverse trend in Juba

and Aweil during this period with, the highest prices in Bor, followed by

Juba and Aweil. In all cases, the highest price were recorded in Bor, this

indicates that households who depends on maize for their food will likely to

be affected from the price increases in Bor compared with households in

Juba and Aweil. The highest price was recorded in January in Aweil and

Wau, while the highest was in February in Bor.

Wheat price Compared with other cereals, price of wheat was slightly stable in all

markets except in Juba. The price in Juba decreased persistently between

December and February, the decline between November 08 and March 2009

was by 50 %. In all cases the highest price was recorded in Juba while the

lowest price was recoded in Malakal

Livestock Prices - Goat price Generally goat prices were stable or slightly increased since November 2008

in all markets except in Aweil. In Aweil the price started increasing in

January, the March 2009 price was by 56 % higher than the price in

December 2008. The highest prices in all months were recorded in Juba and

the lowest in Malakal.

Sheep price Sheep prices were stable in all markets except in Aweil and Juba where

prices slightly increased between November 2008 and February/March

2009.

The prices in Juba increased by 46 % between November 2008 and March

2009.

In Aweil it increased by 55 % between November 2008 and February 2009,

and sarted slightly getting up in March. The highest price in all months were

recorded in Juba and the lowest in Malakal

Sorghum to Goat terms of trade Between September 2008 and December 2008 sorghum per animal terms of

trade in all markets worsened for those selling animals but improved for

those selling sorghum. From January through March 2008 the TOT

improved in favour of goat sellers. This is mainly attributed to increase in

price of goat and the decline in sorghum prices during this period. For

8

instance, Goat prices in Aweil rose by 56 % between November 2008 and

March 2009 while sorghum price during the same period decreased by 10 %,

meaning sorghum per goat terms of trade improved for the goat seller, from

110 kg of sorghum per goat in December 2008 to 191 kg per goat in March

2009.

Cattle price Cattle prices were more or less stabled between January and July 2008. The

highest prices in all cases was in Juba (1300 – 2200 SDG per head) and the

lowest in Malakal (550 -1000 SDG/per head). The price has shown a

declining trend from July 2008 – March 2009 in most markets except in

juba. Where as in Juba it increased consistently from August through

February (20%) although it started slightly falling in March (about 2 %).In

other markets, the prices were slightly declining or stabled between July 08

and March 09

Impact of Rainfall on Agricultural production

By Chan Chuol Lam

Significance of Rainfall Rainfall variability and distribution has impacts in all countries and at all

levels of socio-economic activity, However climate ‘disasters’

(Drought/Floods) usually take prime position in the headlines but normally

inter-annual climate variability affects agricultural production, water

resources, energy and many other sectors. Climate monitoring, prediction

and early warning when taken at an appropriate time will undoubtedly assist

in mitigating some of the negative impacts of climate variability. This will

therefore require taking advantage of quality data (Availability of long-term,

high quality data with good spatial coverage is therefore a prerequisite in

such an endeavor)

Historical Rainfall Data Analysis In Greater Bahr El Ghazal, minimum rainfall was 728.2mm and Maximum

rainfall received for all years was 1,341.1mm. While mean annual rainfall

for 30 years was 1,030.5mm and the Variation of rains was only 17%.

Where as in Upper Nile State, minimum rainfall was 284.2 mm and

Maximum rainfall received for all years was 720mm.The mean annual

rainfall for 30 years was 503.14mm with Variation of only 24%

March – May 2009 Seasonal Rainfall Forecast

9

The regional consensus climate outlook for the months of March to May

2009 rainfall season indicates increased likelihood of below normal rainfall

over the eastern parts of the Greater Horn of Africa (GHA). Increased

likelihood of above normal rainfall is indicated over the western and

southern parts of the GHA sub-region. The western parts cover southern

Sudan.

ANLA 2007

By Paul Anayo, VAM Unit Southern Sudan,

The main objectives of the Annual Needs and Livelihoods Assessment were

to determine the degree of food insecurity (estimated food deficits/gap) at

county and state level and how many people are likely to face food

insecurity and where and why they are food insecure. Also to know the

relief, rehabilitation and development needs/priorities of the community and

to provide an overview of the food security and livelihood situation in South

Sudan-

10

2007 Situational Analysis Improved overall livelihood situation- sustained peace and improvements in

other aspects, e.g. infrastructure, leading to inter and intra regional trade-

exhibited by generally increasingly low commodity prices. More households

were able to buy food from the markets during the times of food stress

(improved market activity). The sale of cereals and agricultural commodities

ranked the highest sources of household income among all the food

consumption groups although there are only rudimentary agricultural

production systems coupled with poor agricultural tools resulting to

cultivating less than 2 feddans.

Threats to livelihoods Poor Tools & Agricultural practices, low seed quality and availability and

prevalence of pests and diseases coupled with health and nutrition, floods

and drought play negatively to the communities’ livelihoods.

Conclusion Although livelihoods have continued to improve substantially, 30% of

households are applying severe coping mechanisms. The average food

deficit was estimated at 34%- with highest food deficit being in Upper Nile

(66%) whilst the lowest food deficit in Central Equatoria (18%). Effects of

the longstanding war still exist as seen in localized insecurity leading to

general price rise. The severe effects of floods have substantial impact on

food security & general livelihoods leaving 1.2 million residents vulnerable

to food insecurity requiring at least 76,000 MT to be addressed through

different interventions such as asset creation; recovery activities, education,

training, etc.

General 2008 Outlook Increased rural-urban migration may lead to increased household reliance on

wage labour- may result in lower wage rates and likely high incidences of

urban malnutrition. The negative impact of floods in most states may result

to generally low food stocks disrupting livelihoods making them to engage

in more negative coping mechanisms. Improved livestock conditions due to

improved pasture and water conditions may result to reduction in localized

insecurity driven by competition for water/pasture resources and improved

fish production are some of the positive things.

Overview of IPC tool By Manase Yanga, FSTS/ SSCCSE

11

Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is a protocol for

situation analysis. It is also a set of tools for classifying the nature and

severity of food security and humanitarian situation. It is a classification

system that can enable technical consensus through comparability over space

and time, transparency through evidence-based analysis, accountability,

clear early warning and more strategic response. It links complex

information to action and enables technical consensus. Its common

classification system would lead to food security and humanitarian

interventions being more needs based with strategic and time frame.

The components of the IPC include reference table for current situation and

early warning, analysis template protocols for organizing and evaluating key

direct and indirect evidence in support of a phase classification statement,

cartographic protocols and population protocols listing magnitude of

problem by administrative boundary, livelihood zone, and livelihood system.

After the IPC tool was presented and fully discussed by all the participants,

the main business of entering existing data for states and livelihoods on the

evidence templates started. All areas of Southern Sudan were mapped using

the mapping protocols including early warning risk and call – out boxes.

Peer review were conducted by the groups presenting to the plenary and by

the plenary discussing the national map.

.

Phase Classification

Green belt livelihood zone

Indicator Confidence (1,2 or 3)

Classification* (1-5)

Risk (alert, mod, high)

CMR (U5MR) 1 (the data obtained from the 2006 HHHS

3 Mod

Acute Malnutrition

NA NA NA

Stunting NA NA NA Disease 3 2 A

12

Food access/ availabilty

1 1 A

Dietary Diversity

1 1 A

Water access/ availability

3 1 A

Hazards 2 2 M Civil security 2 2 M Coping 1 1 A Livelihood Assets

2 1 A

Structural 2 2 A Synthesis 2 1 Alert

Iron stone plateau Livelihood Zone




CMR NA NA NA Acute Malnutrition

NA NA NA

Stunting NA NA NA Disease 1 2 mod Food access/ availabilty

2 1 mod

Dietary Diversity

2 1 mod


2 2 alert

Hazards 2 2 alert Civil security 2 2 alert Coping 1 1 mod Livelihood Assets

2 2 mod

Structural 2 2 mod

13

Synthesis 2 2 mod Nile Sobat Corridor livelihood Indicator Confidence (1,2

or 3) Classification* (1-5)


CMR 1 4 Alert Acute Malnutrition

1 3 Mod

Stunting NA NA NA Disease 1 3 Mod Food access/ availability

1 4 Alert

Dietary Diversity

2 2 Alert


1 2 Alert

Hazards 1 3 Mod Civil security 2 3 Mod Coping 1 4 Alert Livelihood Assets

2 2 Alert

Structural 1 3 Mod Synthesis 1 3 A

14

Western Flood Plains Livelihood Zone Indicator Confidence (1,2

or 3) Classification* (1-5)


CMR 2 2 Watch Acute Malnutrition

1 4 Moderate

Stunting N/A N/A N/A Disease 1 3 Watch Food access/ availability

2 3 Watch

Dietary Diversity

2 3 Moderate


3 4 Moderate

Hazards 2 2 Watch Civil security 2 3 Watch Coping 2 2 Watch Livelihood Assets

3 2 Watch

Structural 3 2 Watch Synthesis 2 3 Watch Major output of the workshop

As illustrated in the IPC map below, the green belt, hills and mountains

zones are generally food secure however the situation is under watch due to

the recent displacement of the communities by the LRA at Lasu Payam in

Yei County and the tribal clashes at Mangalla Payam in Juba County

causing displacement and market disruption. While the pastoral zone,

eastern flood plains and the western flood plains are classified as acute food

and livelihood crisis which is attributed to insecurity ranging from cattle

rustling, civil insecurity to civil unrest. The nile sobat corridor and the iron

stone plateau are generally food insecure this is attributed to civil insecurity

and influx of IDPs from Darfur following the expulsion of the NGOs by the

Government of National Unity..

15

The IPC Map

Challenges

The problems associated with collecting and/or accessing data continue to

dominate this first quarter workshop. The following challenges were made

during a plenary brain-storming session:

• There are limited resources for focal persons in terms of mobility to

enable them collect the data from various NGOs and Ministries in the

state

• Coordination between the state ministry of agriculture, forestry,

animal resources and fisheries, especially the D/G and the FAO field

office should be improved to enable smooth flow of information from

the states to the centre.

16

• There should be an awareness building process in all the state

ministries of agriculture, forestry animal resources and fisheries about

the importance of data collection and analysis

• The data collection format should be improved and simplified and the

focal persons should be motivated

• The LAF should be rolled out to the states and this should be started

through the state level food security coordination meetings

• Improvement of relationship between GOSS and the States is of

paramount importance and all participants should work to make it

happen

Way forward

Overall the workshop achieved its objectives of using the IPC tool to

classify the current and emergent situation in Southern Sudan, and

particularly to train new participants in the application of the IPC using their

own data. The participation at this workshop was much better than at the

December event, and is attributed to the considerable efforts of

SSCCSE/SIFSIA staff to effectively mobilised government (especially

MAF) at both national and state levels. The LAF coordinator and SIFSIA

PSU are to urge the chair man of the SSCCSE to advice his colleagues the

ministers of Agriculture forestry animal resources and fisheries at the states

to refrain from changing/replacing focal persons at their respective states.

The issue of Keak Gat Keak from Upper |Nile State and John Lupo Ucin

from Western Bahr el Ghazal States were cited as examples. The list of

participants should be up dated to include new members of the forum and

there must be a consistency in the participation of the participants in the

LAF. The next LAF meting was scheduled for the 3rd

to 5th June 2009

Closing Remarks After brief remarks by Mr. Evans Kenyi, Food Security Analyst

SIFSIA/FAO, the meeting was closed by the Deputy Director of Monitoring

and Evaluation SSCCSE and the Coordinator of the LAF, Mr Philip Dau.

17

_______________________________________________________

Southern Sudan Commission for Census Statistics and Evaluation

(SSCCSE)

Livelihood Analysis Forum (LAF) Meeting

01 - 03 April 2009, Juba

Agenda Items

Date time Items Responsibility Remarks

09:00 -

09:30

Registration Organisers

09:30 –

09:45

Welcoming remarks SSCCSE

09:45 –

10:30

Briefing Participants about

LAF and introduction to

the agenda

SSCCSE

10:30 –

11:00

Tea break Organisers

11:00 –

11:30

Review of key points from

last meeting (LAF session,

etc)

SSCCSE/FSTS

11:30 –

12:30

Situation analysis by State

participants

Participants Participants

from State,

GOSS, UN

agencies

expected to

provide a

brief on the

current

situation on

the points

listed.

12:30 –

13:00

Agro-Metrological Trends MAF

01.04.0

9

13:00 –

14:00

Lunch Organisers

18

14:00 –

14:30

Market Trend Analysis MAF/MARF

14:30 –

15:00

CFSAM 2008 findings SIFSIA/FSTS

15: 00 – 15:

30

Annual Need and

Livelihood Assessment

reports (ANLA) findings

WFP/VAM

15:30 –

16:00


16:00 –

16:30

Overview of nutrition

situation

MOH

16:30 –

17:30

Introduction to Integrated

Food Security Phase

classification (IPC) tool

FSTS

09:00-10:30 Phase classification

exercise

Organisers

10:30 –

11:00

Tea break

11:00 -

13:00

Phase classification

exercise

Organisers

13:00 –

14:00

Lunch break Participants

14:00 –

15:00


exercise

Participants

15:00 –

15:30


02.04.0

9

15:30 –

17:00


exercise (cont.)

Participants

09:00 –

10:30

IPC Mapping and

presentation

Participants

10:30 –

11:00


03.04.0

9

11:00 –

12:00

IPC Mapping and

presentation (cont.)

Participants

19

12:00 –

12:30

General discussion

o Challenges

o Recommendations

o Conclusions

SSCCSE

12:30 –

13:00

Closing remarks SSCCSE

13:00 –

14:00

Lunch

20

IPC Analysis Templates Part 1: Analysis of Current or Imminent Phase and Early Warning

Green Belt (Western and Central Equatoria)

Area of Analysis (Region, District, or Livelihood Zone): Central Equatoria Time Period of Analysis: April 2009

Reference Outcomes

(As defined

by IPC Reference

Table)

Direct and Indirect Evidence

For Phase in Given Time Period

• List direct and indirect (e.g., process or proxy indicators) evidence of outcomes (note direct evidence in bold)

• Note source of evidence

• Note evidence Reliability Score (1=very reliable, 2=somewhat reliable 3=unconfirmed)

• Identify indicative Phase for each piece of evidence

• Note ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘Not Available’ if necessary

Projected Phase for

Time Period

(Circle or

Bold appropriate

Phase)

Evidence of

Risk for Worsening Phase or Magnitude

(list hazard and process indicators)

• List evidence in support of risk statement

• Source of Evidence

• Reliability Score (1=very reliable, 2=somewhat reliable 3=unconfirmed)

Risk Level

(Circle or

Bold appropriate Risk Level

and expected

Severity, if warranted)

Crude mortality

rate

• 3.5 % (0.4/10,000/da) in Sabah Hospital (only Central Equatoria)

Acute malnutrition

• NA

Disease • HIV rate is high (no statistical data) (3)

Generally Food Secure 1A

Disease HIV infection is increasing and could threaten livelihoods of both rural and urban

No Early Warning

Watch

21

Food Access/Ava

ilability

• Food Access: Adequate food is available in the market. Household’s purchasing power is weak for civil servants and not affording to buy adequate food from the market. (3) Food price is dropping in Western Equatoria because food is purchased by Ministry of Finance and sold in subsidized price. Sorghum price is dropping in CE (Juba) while maize’s prices are picking up over the past few months (1).

• Food Availability The rainfall patterns were highly conducive to crop and pasture production. Planting has been normal covering a wide variety of crops planted in series and as mixed stands. Maize and sorghum yields of 2-3 tonnes per ha are noted by the CFSAM Mission but with greatly improved security, except for LRA hit and run areas along the border with Uganda and Congo, labour is very much in demand for all manual work, including farm labouring. Complaints of a rural exodus of the young men to the labour magnet of Juba are noted in all counties; but with prices for clearing, cultivating and weeding (1 x only) reaching USD 600/ha (500 SP/feddan), farm labourers are being attracted to Equatoria from

Generally Food Secure 1B

Generally Food Insecure

Acute Food and Livelihood Crisis

Humanitarian Emergency

Famine/ Humanitarian Catastrophe

households Resource based conflict Resource based conflict continue to be seriously affecting agricultural production activities in rural areas. Land mines Land mines problems could reduce due to intensive de-mining activities by the government ad external partners.

Moderate Risk o AFLC o HE o Famine/

HC High Risk o AFLC o HE o Famine/

HC

22

neighbouring countries. Cassava yields for 3-year crops were sampled abnd weighed and found to confirm previous estimates that the bitter cassava varieties are producing some 30 tonnes fresh material/ha when harvested at the end of the third year. In the Greenbelt, most well-established farms (ie not new returnees) are estimated by the CFSAM to have at least 1 feddan of newly planted cassava, I feddan of 2nd year cassava and I feddan of third year cassava within their land occupancy as well as the areas of cereals. (1: CFSAM report) In CE State, there has been a noticeable increase in planting in all directions. Crop cuts and linked observations indicate sorghum yields around 1.5 to 3.0 t/ha for both the short cycle landrace Kelle and Lodoka, the tall, longer maturing landrace that makes up the bulk of the crop. Road and river observations suggest widespread planting and well-grown sorghum in the hinterland of Terekeka. The CFSAM team confirmed good crops of groundnuts and sorghum and an overall better season than 2007 (1: CFSAM report).

Dietary diversity

The most common food crop preferred by the people of Juba county is beans. A simple household of three members consumes 3-6 kg of beans weekly. Beans consumption usually

23

together with rice, followed by meat 2-4 kg in one week. Groundnuts, sesame, cassava, sorghum, maize, eggs, and fish are the chief food strongly needed by households. During dry season vegetables price become higher so people ea less and shifted o ea more legume. This season is a mango season a are also mango fruits are abundant and accessible for most household. Cassava, Yams, sweet potatoes, cocoyam abundantly available. (1: Poverty assessment and mapping))

Water access/avai

lability

Water is adequately available in most parts of WE. Sources of water are: open dug well and streams. Rain fall is throughout a year except between half of march and April. River Nile passes across two counties (Juba and Terekeka) yet many households do not have access to clean and fresh water. People in far areas in Juba county obtain water from tanks at higher price. Boreholes are few in number and are overcrowded. The rest of the counties face the same problem. Hygienically, the water from river Nile is not good. (2)

Destitution/ Displaceme

nt

The State order confirming demolition of areas harboring internal displaced person (IDPs) has affected many households in Juba own badly. Settlement and return has become a dilemma for people whose areas are still insecure. There is no shelter especially when it is rainy season. Some people have decided to move to their areas of origin but there is no

24

water. Medical, education, food, shelter etc services for the people. (1) LRA has affected all except three counties in WE. The LRA attack has affected Yei counties, 9 miles from Yei town. He veterans have blocked the road in Yei and affected movement of food commodities and people (the problem has solved now) (2)

Civil Security

The LRA operation in both eastern and western banks of river nile scare communities from return. This situation has contributed to import dependency instead of producing hire sample crops. Security is not stable and some zones referred to as level 4 are not stepped on at post war period due to landmines. During early March an incident of arm robbery, confiscation of civilian properties occurred in Yei own. The LRA attack created severe problem and threatened the livelihood of people in most parts of Western Equatoria.(1)

Coping

In CES one of the coping mechanisms for the people in the town is by reducing number meals to one instead of having four meals a day. They select cheap diets for the salary to take them at the end of the month. The rural populations cope up by collecting fire wood and charcoal, thatching grass, selling of livestock mangoes and ground nut. In other instance they go to towns for selling labor. In WES they employ similar coping mechanisms

25

plus selling of yams, fishing, hunting, sell of local building materials and honey bee collection. (1: Poverty assessment and mapping)

Structural Issues

Traditional agricultural production system which is no productive, relatively better educational level. (2)

Hazards

Cattle raiding among pastoralists are wide spread in CES and eastern part of WES. In March 2009 more than 300 cattle’s were confiscated from pastoral group by armed groups at the eastern bank of river Nile and Juba county and killing two cattle owners and two are seriously wounded. (1) Along the borders with DRC peoples (farmers) affected by LRA activities. Constraining agricultural activities (e. g people killed chopped by LRA along the borers very recently. HIV infection also another threat in WES and CES. Tse tse fly is another problem for livestock keepers in WES, though the impact in humans reducing due to interventions by INGOS such as MSF. (2) Ambararo (nomads from West Africa, Chad, Central Africa) spoil the environment by killing bees using chemicaland other wild life that include Rhinos and elephants for food.(2)

26

Livelihood Assets

(5 capitals)

Financial capital: financial positions of households depend on their sources of income. Delay of salaries in CES/WES has negatively affected the livelihood of people whose source of income are solely salaries. This has happened because dropping of oil prices in international market that causes reduction of budge allocated to GOSS from the GNU. (1) Physical capital: CES is blessed with abundant arable land but it can not be utilized maximally due to land mines and insecurity. Lack of skills in mechanized agriculture is an issue in WES. New road is being constructed between Nzara and Tombura. Another road is started from Meridi to Mambe. The road from Kajokeji to Juba is accessebile. (2) Human Resources: A good number of jobless young men and women educated, not educated are in search of job. A young graduate after failing in getting job conspired to commit suicide but was rescued. The returnees came with new skills different fields (agriculture, masonry, carpenter, etc.). (2) Social capital: Cases of divorce among young couples are very high due to poor conditions of living. A number of bars and local breweries have increased surprisingly. This will increase number of drunker and crimes. 2)

27

Rural to urban migration has affected livelihoods by reducing number of people working in agriculture. Imported cultures from neighboring countries have affected local cultures negatively. (1: CFSAM report)) Natural capital: Very rich natural resources base including water (rainfall amount), fertile land and forest in most of green belt area of WES and CES. (1: CFSAM) Local politics: land conflicts (e.g.: between Bari and Mundari tribe in Mangala area of CE), tribalism, nepotisms, corruption are unveiled facts. (2)

IPC Analysis Templates Part 1: Analysis of Current or Imminent Phase and Early Warning

28

Area of Analysis (Region, District, or Livelihood Zone): Western Flood plains NBEG, Warrap & Unity Time Period of Analysis:

Reference Outcomes

(As defined

by IPC Reference

Table)








Projected Phase for

Time Period

(Circle or

Bold appropriate

Phase)

Evidence of






Risk Level

(Circle or


and expected


Crude mortality

rate

• Child mortality rate: 1.41/10000 per live births per day (it is more or les similar to the baseline CMR for sub-Saharan Africa (1.14)

Acute malnutrition

• Not available GAM rate 20.1 SAM 2.4 %

Disease • Not available : Cholera outbreak in Akon,

Nyamlel 18 cases

Food Access/Ava

ilability

• Food Access: o Food sources : o Unity state: Vegetables, own

production, fish, milk, meat o Warrap: government subsidized

sorghum, WFP, local production, meat, milk, fish, vegetable, mango,


Generally Food Secure 1B


Nutrition survey by ACF in Warrap state and WFP state wide ( January 2009) The nyamlele and Akon Cholera outbreak (Jan and Feb 2009) The inter-clan fighting in Warrap and Lakes In January.

No Early Warning

Watch

Moderate Risk o AFLC o HE o Famine/

HC

29

fruits, (NGO handout in Gogrial). NBeG: Aweil East: Meat, Sorghum, fish ( dried fish), vegetable ( Okra, Mangos, honey ( Aweil West), Groundnuts o Income sources Unity: employment available ( oil field and NGO, Goss), trade, Warrap: Government, self-employment, fishing, petty trade, selling livestocks NBeG: Govet, self-employment, brick making

o Expenditures

Unity: food, ,medical, dowry, Warrap: Food, medical, water, construction of tukuls NBeG: Food, medical, water, construction of tukuls

o Purchasing power Unity: Low purchasing power due to food unavailability (sorghum & Maize) in the market

o Social Access Low social access due low availability of food at HHs level, high in honey and mango

• Food Availability:

• Very low availability due to poor harvest,



Famine/ Humanitarian Catastrophe

High Risk o AFLC o HE o Famine/

HC

30

flooding, conflict ( in Unity, NBeG vs Warrap) influx of returnees

Supply lines : Unity: ferried from the North, local production ( mechanized farms), wild food Warrap: From the north, Uganda, own production o Cereal balance sheets

• Other direct or indirect measures

Dietary diversity

sorghum, okra, meat, milk, fish, g. nut, sesame, mango, wild foods

Water access/avai

lability

Warrap: very poor access to water (unity), 20 boreholes in the whole state ACF-France. Warrap; fair/easily accessible NBeG: Poor access to water

Destitution/ Displaceme

nt

Flood IDPs returned back to their original place Ongoing conflict in Warrap and Lakes,

Civil Security

Insecurity: ongoing conflict in Warrap and Lakes: Mapre, among themselves, Tonji south and Gogrial east. Three cases mentioned: intertribal: Nuer vs Misseriya

Coping

Diet adjustment, selling grass, fuel woods, consumption of wild fruits, relaying on kinship/ reliance on wild products, selling productive assets

Structural Issues

Roads construction that connects Tonji South to Tonj east, wau to Tonj North, Bridge

31

construction in between Twic and GWC, oil revenue reduction impacts the civil service system. Weak government structure in the county level. NBeG: bridge and road construction in four counties UNITY: All counties are connected by roads. Tarmac road is available. Communication system is available

Hazards

Warrap: Localized conflict, NBeG deforestation, slash burning, wind erosion, extreme temperature, UNITY: environmental pollution from oil fields

Livelihood Assets

(5 capitals)

Natural capital: Fertile land, no rainfall, fishing grounds Physical: Steadily improving and available in all states Social capital: strong kinship. Human: Poor access to education, health facilities built by NGOs in Twic County Financial capital: Access to credit/small business in Twic and GWC counties by ACF USA. Poor access to micro-credit IN other states.

32

Part 2: Analysis of Immediate Hazards, Effects on Livelihood Strategies, and Implications for Immediate Response

Area of Analysis (Region, District, or Livelihood Zone): Time Period of Analysis:

ANALYSIS ACTION

Current or Imminent

Phase

(Circle or Bold Phase from Part 1)

Immediate

Hazards

(Driving Forces)

Direct Food Security Problem

(Access,

Availability, and/or

Utilization)

Effect on Livelihood Strategies

(Summary Statement)

Population Affected

(Characteri

stics, percent, and total estimate)

Projected Trend

(Improving, No change, Worsening, Mixed Signals)

Risk Factors

to Monitor

Opportunities for Response

(to Immediately improve food access)


Generally

Food Secure 1B


Acute

Food and

Malnutrit

ion rate

Water

access

and

availabili

ty

The

inter-clan

fighting

Poor access

or

lower

purchasing

power

Poor dietary

diversity

With high malnutrition

rate which is caused by

food shortages, pure

water access there will

be high potential of

disease outbreak during

the hunger gap in

Warrap and NBeG

There is high chance

for soil erosion during

the upcoming rainy

season

The ongoing inter-clan

N/A Worsenin

g

The hunger gap is

around the corner

Less water

until the rainy water

Arrival of

more returnees with few

resources

Conflict

Seeds and tools and seeds

protection ration

Food for recovery

Ox-plough training

Cash based intervention

like vouchers

Boreholes rehabilitation

33

Livelihood Crisis

Humanitari

an Emergency

Famine/

Humanitarian Catastrophe

conflict would

potentially result in

displacement and

missing out the

planting season

might result in missing

the planting season

Following the ICC decision,

the withdrawal humanitarian agencies from Darfur might result the influx of IDPs to the

borders states like Northern

Warrap and NBeG

34

Part 3: Analysis of Underlying Structures, Effects on Livelihood Assets, and

Opportunities in the Medium and Long Term


ANALYSIS ACTION

Current or Imminent

Phase


Underlying Causes

(Environmental Degradation, Social, Poor Governance,

Marginalization, etc.)

Effect on Livelihood Assets

(Summary Statements)

Projected Trend


Opportunities to support livelihoods and address

underlying causes

(Policy, Programmes and/or Advocacy)

Physical Capital: Land degradation, deforestation

Mixed signals

Social Capital Declines social support,

Worsening


Generally

Food Secure 1B


Acute

Food and

Financial Capital: Limited amount of money, less oil revenue leads high unemployment global financial crisis resulting less funds for NGOs, less remittance from overseas hence less money for families rely on hence poor access to food

worsening

Seeds and tools and seeds

protection ration

Food for recovery

Ox-plough training

Cash based intervention like

vouchers

35

Boreholes rehabilitation

Natural Capital: Heavy reliance on natural resources

Mixed signals

Human Capital: Poor access to education and health services

Mixed signals

Livelihood Crisis

Humanitari

an Emergency

Famine/

Humanitarian Catastrophe

Local Political Capital: Not allowing the skilled manpower from neighboring countries is hindering the project implementation in projects in NBeG

Mixed signals

36

Confidence (1,2 or 3)



CMR 2 2 Watch Acute Malnutrition

1 4 Moderate

Stunting N/A N/A N/A Disease 1 3 Watch Food access/ availability

2 3 Watch

Dietary Diversity

2 3 Moderate


3 4 Moderate

Hazards 2 2 Watch Civil security 2 3 Watch Coping 2 2 Watch Livelihood Assets

3 2 Watch

Structural 3 2 Watch Synthesis 2 3 Watch

37

Note on Estimation of Affected Population Numbers 1. Define geographic area that spatially delineates the affected population. 2. Identify the most current population estimates for this geographic area, interpolating from admin boundaries where

necessary. 3. Adjust total population estimates to account for any known recent migration in or out of the affected area. 4. Estimate the percent of the population estimated in each Phase within the affected geographic area. The most appropriate

method could be by livelihood zone, wealth group, but in come instances may be more accurate to estimate by clan, gender, etc. Note, the IPC does not provide a method for the population estimates.

Appendix C IPC Analysis Templates Part 1: Analysis of Current or Imminent Phase and Risk Analysis

EASTERN EQUATORIA/JONGLEI STATES/NILE SOBAT CORRIDOR

38

Area of Analysis (Region, District, or Livelihood Zone): Arid Zone/Eastern Flood Plains/Sudd Region Time Period of Analysis: First Quarter (Dec – Feb 2009)

Reference Outcomes

(As defined

by IPC Reference

Table)








Projected Phase for

Time Period

(Circle or

Bold appropriate

Phase)

Evidence of






Risk Level

(Circle or


and expected


Crude mortality rate

• Eastern Equatoria: 1.6/10,000 Sources (MoH) (1) R

• Jonglei State: NA

• Nile Sobat Corridor: NA

Acute malnutrition

• Eastern Equatoria: 0.7 Sources (MoH) (1) R

• Jonglei State: Less than 0.3 (MoH) (1) R

• Nile Sobat River: Less than 0.3 (MoH) (1)R

Chronic Malnutrition

• Eastern Equatoria: NA

• Jonglei State: NA

• Nile Sobat River: NA

Disease

• Eastern Equatoria: Malaria, Watery Diarrhea, T. saginata, T. solium, amoeba, Gardia, Typhoid: Sources (MoH) (1) R

• Jonglei State: Malaria, Pneumonia,


Acute Food Security and livelihood crisis

1.6/10,000 (MoH) (1)R 0.4 (MoH) (1) R NA MoH (2) R

Alert Mod NA Mod

39

Typhoid, TB, Anemia, Brucellosis, Guinea Worms, Skin Diseases; Sources (MoH) (1) R

• Nile Sobat Corridor: Kalazar, Malaria, Pneumonia Typhoid, TB, Bilharzia, Sources: (MoH) (1) R

Food Access/Availability

• Food Access: o Eastern Equatoria: Imported from

Kenya/Uganda (maize, rice, sorghum); local produce; Fish, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, sorghum, simsim Sources: (MoAFFCD/MoFIT) (1)R

o Jonglei State: Upper Nile and northern Sudan (sorghum, rice, oil, beans and beverages), Uganda (maize flour, beans, oil, beverages); local produce (livestock, grains, fish, vegetables), relief aids (sorghum, pulses and oil) Sources:(MoAFFCD/WFP/FAO/UNHCR/NPA/MoFED) (1)R

o Nile Sobat Corridor: Fish local, supplemented with sorghum, oil, beverages from upper Nile, northern Sudan and Uganda. Sources:(MoAFFCD/WFP/FAO/UNHCR/NPA/MoFED) (1)R

• Food Availability


Chronically Food Insecure

(MoAFFCD/MoFIT) (2)R

Alert

40

Eastern Equatoria: o Production: Limited due to drought

(late rains) o Supply lines: kineti river flooded

affected supply lines from surplus areas, poor roads

o Cereal balance sheets: inadequate: sources (MoAFFCD/MoFIT) (1)R

Jonglei State:

o Production: Limited due to floods, displacements due to tribal conflicts, inappropriate production tools

o Supply lines: bad roads, floods, conflicts impassable

o Cereal balance sheets: inadequate: Sources(MoAFFCD/MoFED/WFP) (1)R

Nile Sobat Corridor: o Production: Cereals Limited due to

floods, young ones engaged in fishing, inappropriate production tools

o Supply lines: bad roads, floods, mainly river transportation

o Cereal balance sheets: inadequate Sources (MoAFFCD/MoFED/WFP) (1)R

• Other direct or indirect measures: Improve roads for greater accessibility; Improve road networks, provide security,

(2) R

Alert Mod

41

provide modern implements to boost productivity; Introduce technology to increase production levels. (applicable to all)

Dietary diversity

Eastern Equatoria:

• Diversity of food items; meat, fish, vegetables, mangoes, beans, cowpeas, lentils, honey, milk; some households (hhs) do not have access to all items (MoAFFCD/MoH) (2) R

Jonglei State:

• Diverse (fish, cereals, milk, vegetables, meat, wild and domestic fruits, groundnuts, simsim (not common), wheat and maize flour (MoAFFCD/FAO/WFP/UNHCR/Local Govt) (1) R

Nile Sobat Corridor: same as in Jonglei state (MoAFFCD/FAO/WFP/UNHCR/Local Govt Authorities) (1) R

Water access/availability

Eastern Equatoria:

• Water is available (boreholes, rivers, pools): (MoPI) (1) R

Jonglei State:

• Available (rivers, boreholes, pools, hafirs and wells/not common)

(MoPI) (1) R Nile Sobat Corridor:

• Available (rivers, swamps, tributaries, pools, hafirs/not common)

(MoPI) (1) R

Destitution/ Eastern Equatoria:

(1) R

(1) R

(1) R

Mod Alert Mod

42

Displacement

• Communal lifestyle (widows, orphans are accommodated)

• Tribal conflicts, natural death, returnees, famine and flood

(State police/MoH/MoAFFCD) (1) R Jonglei State:

• Inter-tribal conflicts (Murle/Dinka, Murle/Nuer, Nuer/Dinka), floods (Baidit) caused displacement. Apparent destitution (MoAFFCD/SRRC/FAO/WFP/UNHCR/Local Govt Authorities) (1) R

Nile Sobat Corridor:

• Kinship (MoAFFCD) (1) R

Civil Security

Eastern Equatoria:

• Intra-tribal (Lopa/Torit counties) conflicts, cattle raiding, (Police Report (1)R

Jonglei State:

• Rampant inter-tribal conflicts, looting of livestock, destitution and displacement apparent (Local Govt Authorities) (1) R


• Peaceful (Local Govt Authorities) (2) R

Coping

Eastern Equatoria:

• Own crop, livestock, wild foods, tuber

(1) R

(1) R (1) R

Mod Alert

43

crops, handcrapts (hhs surveys FAO) (1) R

Jonglei State:

• Fishing, kinship support, livestock, labour, wood/charcoal/grass/wild fruits, hunting, migration to surplus areas (Local Govt Authorities, community leaders) (1)R


• Fishing, reeds/papyrus collection, water Lilly seeds for porrage, maize cultivation on dry lands , livestock keeping (Community Leaders, MoAFFCD) (1) R

Structural Issues

Eastern Equatoria:

• Construction of Kiyala- Ikotos-Tseretenya-Uganda border road 150km; Kiyala, Loronyo, Imurok primary and Kiyala secondary schools: source (MoE, Mac Dowell construction Company) (1) R

Jonglei State/Nile Sobat corridor:

• Locally thatched housing, bad roads, traditional agricultural tools, schools and hospitals inadequate: Source (MIoH, MoPI, MoAFFCD) (1) R

Hazards

Eastern Equatoria:

• Inter/Intra tribal conflicts (Topasa/Latuka/Buya), LRA Source (State security council) (1) R

Jonglei State::

44

• Inter-tribal conflicts (Nuer/Dinka/Murle), drought, water scarcity in land-locked counties Source (Local Govt Authorities, Community Leaders, SSRRC) (1) R


• Floods, diseases (Diarrhea, Bilharziasis, Kalazar etc) source (Community Leaders, MoH, Local Govt Authorities, FAO, SSRRC) (1) R

Livelihood Assets (5 capitals)

Eastern Equatoria:

• land for production, but utilization of this land is very limited because many residents are pastoralists or are unwilling to farm .

• Livestock may be sold to provide short term solution to household food insecurity. These animals are prone to diseases and cattle raiding.

• Finances to acquire food from markets are not available to many households . Sale of bamboos, grass, wood, charcoal and wild foods for income generation

• Human energy is the main source of capital labor for household production. Diseases and malnutrition may render a household incapable of producing enough food in case of diseases.

• Kinship association is a key source of social capital as communal lifestyle still exists among the inhabitants of the zone.

Source: (Community Leaders) (2) R

45

Jonglei State/Nile Sobat Corridor:

• land for production, but utilization of this land is very limited because many residents are pastoralists or are unwilling to farm .

• Livestock/Fish may be sold to provide short term solution to household food insecurity. These animals are prone to diseases and cattle raiding. Fish (sale/consumption)

• Finances to acquire food from markets are not available to many households. Sale of livestock/fish, wood, charcoal, grass, wild foods for cash.

• Human energy is the main source of capital labor for household production. Diseases and malnutrition may render a household incapable of producing enough food in case of diseases.

• Kinship association is alternative source of social capital as communal lifestyle still exists among the inhabitants of the zones.

Source (Community Leaders) (2)R

46

Part 2: Analysis of Immediate Hazards, Effects on Livelihood Strategies, and Implications for Immediate Response

Area of Analysis (Region, District, or Livelihood Zone): Eastern Equatoria Flood Plains and Sudd Region Time Period of Analysis: 1st Quarter (Dec 08 – Feb 09)

ANALYSIS ACTION

Current or Imminent

Phase


Immediate

Hazards

(Driving Forces)

Direct Food Security Problem

(Access,

Availability, and/or

Utilization)

Effect on Livelihood Strategies

(Summary Statement)

Population Affected

(Characteri

stics, percent, and total estimate)

Projected Trend


Risk Factors

to Monitor

Opportunities for Response

(to Immediately improve food access)

Acute Food

and

Livelihood

Crisis

Confli

cts

Flood

s

Droug

ht

Disea

ses

Malnu

trition

Food In

availabilit

y

Displacement

Destitution

Mortality

Livelihood

strategies strained

NA Mixed

signals

Conflicts

Displace

ment and

Destitutio

n

Security

surveillance/Law

enforcement

Relief/food

supply/Drugs

Early warning of

floods incidences

Early warning of

weather forecast and

rainfall patterns

47

Extension Services

48

Part 3: Analysis of Underlying Structures, Effects on Livelihood Assets, and

Opportunities for response sin the Medium and Long Term


ANALYSIS ACTION

Current or Imminent

Phase


Underlying Causes

(Environmental Degradation, Social, Poor Governance,

Marginalization, etc.)

Effect on Livelihood Assets

(Summary Statements)

Projected Trend


Opportunities to support livelihoods and address

underlying causes

(Policy, Programmes and/or Advocacy)

Physical Capital: Bad roads affecting accessibility, availability

Improving Infrastructure development

underway

Social Capital: Sporadic intra/intertribal conflicts leading death and displacement

Mixed

signals

Community

awareness/dialogue/campaigns

on-going


Humanitari

an Emergency

Chronically Food Insecure

Conflicts

Drought

Flood

Diseases

Displacement

Returnees

Internally

Displaced

Financial Capital: Lack of funds affecting purchasing power, consumer preferences , lack of inputs for fishing and crop production

Mixed

Signals

Review and reformation of

Public service regulations

Regularity in payment of civil

servants salaries

49

Provision of production inputs

Natural Capital: Land degradation, poor crop yields, deforestation, pollution of water sources, pressure on water points, loss of livestock and fish

Worsening

Law enforcement to regulate

deforestation and pollution

Agriculture/livestock/fishery

development schemes

Provision of water points for

both human and livestock

Human Capital:

Reduction in human labor, malnourishment , diseases

Mixed

signals

Provision of health/education

services

Food distribution to address

malnutrition

Persons

Lawlessness

Poor road

networks

Malnutrition

Local Political Capital: Poor governance,

Improving Provision of laws and

regulations to control

agriculture/livestock/fishery

activities

50

Note on Estimation of Affected Population Numbers 5. Define geographic area that spatially delineates the affected population. 6. Identify the most current population estimates for this geographic area, interpolating from admin boundaries where

necessary. 7. Adjust total population estimates to account for any known recent migration in or out of the affected area. 8. Estimate the percent of the population estimated in each Phase within the affected geographic area. The most appropriate

method could be by livelihood zone, wealth group, but in come instances may be more accurate to estimate by clan, gender, etc. Note, the IPC does not provide a method for the population estimates.

51

Phase Classification




CMR 1 4 Alert Acute Malnutrition

1 3 Mod

Stunting NA NA NA Disease 1 3 Mod Food access/ availability

1 4 Alert

Dietary Diversity

2 2 Alert


1 2 Alert

Hazards 1 3 Mod Civil security 2 3 Mod Coping 1 4 Alert Livelihood Assets

2 2 Alert

Structural 1 3 Mod Synthesis 1 3 A

52

*GFS=1; CFI=2; AFLC=3; HE=4; FHC=5 Notes: 1. Phases should be current or imminent. By including ‘imminent’ in a Phase classification, the analysts are communicating

that if the outcomes are not yet present they are effectively certain to be in the time period specified and thus the area should be treated as being in that Phase in terms of programme urgency and design.

2. In the absence of direct measures, we need to interpret the likely related outcome of process and/or proxy indicators. Proxy

or process indicators by definition do not directly measure an outcome, and need to be interpreted according to their livelihood context and relationship with other factors. The IPC Reference Table provides a common reference for outcomes that should be compared to, and it is up to the analysts to make the appropriate association between specific indirect evidence and the IPC reference outcomes.

3. Confidence: The IPC approach is to recognize that with or without optimal data, decisions are made and would be better

informed through the systematic analysis of that data which does exist. Further, any initial start on data documentation can be further improved upon as the body of evidence improves. Thus, IPC analysis can be done with scanty or very comprehensive data, and that difference should be clearly indicated through the Confidence Levels of the analysis. The confidence level of the analysis is informed through overall evaluation of a completed Analysis Template with consideration for the comprehensiveness of the evidence, its strength in indicating a reference outcome, and its reliability (note that each piece of evidence is assigned a reliability score).

53

LAF/IPC Analysis Meeting 1st- 3rd April 2009

S/No Name Title State/Institution Contact E mail and phone no.

1 Augustino Aguot

D/D Vet Services/ Focal Person NBEG State 0917227337

2 Denis Poggo

Program manager SIFSIA/FAO FAO/SIFSIA [email protected]

3 Yergalem T. Beraki

Food security analyst/FAO SIFSIA [email protected]

4 James Logale Ejidio Focal Person MAFAR/DAR&F/CES [email protected]

5 Benjamin Makoi N Focal Person Lakes 0926943255/0477182350

6 William Ellack D/Vet Focal Person SMOALEE&RD 0917224066

7 Issa Ali Mokhtar D/Agric Focal Person Unity State [email protected]

8 Kuol Alier Deng

D/Animal Res. Focal Person Jonglei State [email protected]

9 Alfred T Kenyi TFSO FSTS/SSCCSE [email protected]

10 Elijah Mukhala

Info. Sys. & cap build specialist SIFSIA [email protected]

11 Tiberious L Bara Coordinator FSTS/ SSCCSE [email protected]

12 Eliaba Y Habakuk

D/Agric Exten MoA/WES 0477198574

13 Jacob Biar Deng officer SSCCSE 0121587397

14 Robert Otik Monoji

Progam Manager Intermon Oxfam [email protected]

15 Phillip Dau Coordinator LAF SSCCSE [email protected]

16 Rogato K Ohide Marketing Expert MAF/GOSS [email protected]

17 Anthony Julu michael

Fisheries Expert MARF/GOSS [email protected]

18 Ali Said

Chief Technical Advisor SIFSIA/FAO [email protected]

19 Evans Kenyi Food Security SIFSIA/FAO [email protected]

54

Analyst

20 Henry Muganga Project Officer World Vision [email protected]

21 Michael Jada A/Inspector MAFAR/DAR&F/CES [email protected] 22 Lino Lumori S/Inspector MCRD/GOSS 09148857920914

23 Chan Chuol Lam

Agro meotrologist MARF/FSTS

24 Alartai Yunch Quality officer Medair

25 John Arop Project Officer HARD [email protected]

26 Angelo Longa Inspector MAF/GOSS [email protected]

27 Elijah Luak Inspector Marketing –MAF/GOSS [email protected]

28 Mary Benjamin Director PH&HE MAF/GOSS [email protected]

29 Analia Ramos

Food Security Coordinator Concern [email protected]

30 Mulugeta Handino

Food Security Coordinator ACF - USA Fsco.ssd@acf-international

31 Ruth Mc Cormack

FSL Program Manager ACF - USA

fs-mln.ssd@acf-international

32 Gatluak Tut M&E SSCCSE [email protected]

33 Manase Yanga Laki FSPO FSTS/SSCCSE [email protected]

34 Yamamoto Sachio Chief advisor JICA/LIPS [email protected]

35 Joseph Kuol Amet

S/Inspector of Agric MAF/Warap 0926751580

36 John Lupo Ucin Inspector of Agric SMoA/WBEG State 0122246239

37 Kyanya Bernadette

Community Development JICA/LIPS [email protected]

38 Abigail Wathome

Livelihoods Advisor Oxfam GB [email protected]

39 Mark Otwari D/D SDSD SSCCSE [email protected]

40 Gordon Ladu Paulo M&E SSCCSE [email protected]

41 Paul Riak Luigi Director MCI/GOSS 0129087609

42 Maureen Modong P

A/Project Coordinator JICA/LIPS [email protected]

43 Celestino Oja Isaac A/Inspector MCI GOSS 0126355938

55

44 Loro Ladu Sule M&E officer SSCCSE [email protected]

45 Val R Encomio Program Manager CRS [email protected]

46 Jimmy Atilio A/Inspector MCRD?GOSS [email protected] 47 Victoria Eluzai D/G ND MOH [email protected]

government of southern sudan south …s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ government of southern sudan...

Documents