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
Indicator Confidence (1,2 or 3)
Classification* (1-5)
Risk (alert, mod, high)
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
Water access/ availability
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)
Risk (alert, mod, high)
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
Water access/ availability
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)
Risk (alert, mod, high)
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
Water access/ availability
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
Tea break Organisers
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
Phase classification
exercise
Participants
15:00 –
15:30
Tea break Organisers
02.04.0
9
15:30 –
17:00
Phase classification
exercise (cont.)
Participants
09:00 –
10:30
IPC Mapping and
presentation
Participants
10:30 –
11:00
Tea break Organisers
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)
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
• 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 1A
Generally Food Secure 1B
Generally Food Insecure
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,
Acute Food and Livelihood Crisis
Humanitarian Emergency
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 1A
Generally
Food Secure 1B
Generally Food Insecure
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
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)
Underlying Causes
(Environmental Degradation, Social, Poor Governance,
Marginalization, etc.)
Effect on Livelihood Assets
(Summary Statements)
Projected Trend
(Improving, No change, Worsening, Mixed Signals)
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 1A
Generally
Food Secure 1B
Generally Food Insecure
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)
Classification* (1-5)
Risk (alert, mod, high)
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
Water access/ availability
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)
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
• 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,
Humanitarian Emergency
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
Humanitarian Emergency
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
Nile Sobat Corridor:
• 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
Nile Sobat Corridor:
• 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
Nile Sobat Corridor:
• 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
(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)
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
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)
Underlying Causes
(Environmental Degradation, Social, Poor Governance,
Marginalization, etc.)
Effect on Livelihood Assets
(Summary Statements)
Projected Trend
(Improving, No change, Worsening, Mixed Signals)
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/inter- tribal conflicts leading death and displacement
Mixed
signals
Community
awareness/dialogue/campaigns
on-going
Acute Food and Livelihood Crisis
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
Indicator Confidence (1,2 or 3)
Classification* (1-5)
Risk (alert, mod, high)
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
Water access/ availability
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]
Top Related