lra affected i dp assessment - world food...

LRAAssWeste19th ‐3

A‐affsessmrn Equa31st M

fectmenatoria Say 2011

ed Int tate, So1

IDP

outh Sudan

Assessment report – LRA affected IDPs in WES May 2011

2

Table of Contents

List of acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Objectives.............................................................................................................................................. 5

3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 6

4 Demographics and livelihoods .............................................................................................................. 6

4.1 Livelihood groups .......................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Income generation ........................................................................................................................ 6

4.3 Who are poor, middle class and better‐off ................................................................................... 7

5 Displacement ........................................................................................................................................ 7

5.1 Shelter ........................................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Conditions for return .................................................................................................................... 8

6 Access to services and basic needs ....................................................................................................... 8

6.1 Assistance received ....................................................................................................................... 8

7 Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................ 9

8 Food sources, consumption and market .............................................................................................. 9

8.1 Market ........................................................................................................................................... 9

8.2 Food sources ............................................................................................................................... 10

8.3 Food consumption ...................................................................................................................... 10

9 Community priorities .......................................................................................................................... 10

10 Discussion, conclusion and recommendations ............................................................................... 11

Annex 1: Assessment team ......................................................................................................................... 13

Annex 2: Focus group questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 14

Annex 3: LRA Affected IDPs in Western Equatoria ..................................................................................... 20


3

List of acronyms

CAFOD Catholic Overseas Development Agency CAR Central African Republic DRC Democratic Republic of Congo FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FGD Focus Group Discussion FSMS Food Security Monitoring System GFD General Food Distribution GOU Government of Uganda HH Household IDP Internally Displaced Person IOM International Organization for Migration LRA Lord Resistance Army MT Metric Ton NGOs Non‐Governmental Organizations RCSO Resident Coordinator's Support Office SAF Sudan Armed Forces SDG Sudanese Pounds SPLA Sudan People’s Liberation Army SSRRC South Sudan Relief and Reconstruction Commission UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNMIS United Nations Mission in Sudan UNOCHA United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Unit WFP World Food Programme WES Western Equatoria State WVI World Vision


4

Executive Summary

The main objective of the inter‐agency assessment for the LRA IDPs in six Counties of Western Equatoria State (WES) was to assess their food security status and possible needs which can be used to formulate an exit strategy for IDPs who have continuously been assisted for even up to 3 years. The interagency assessment was conducted from 19‐31 May 2011 by a team led by WFP. Other partners were UNOCHA, RSCO, IOM, UNICEF, UNHCR, FAO, CAFOD, WVI, INTERSOS and SSRRC. At least 300 IDPs were interviewed through focus group interviews in Tambura, Ezo, Nzara, Maridi, Yambio, and Ibba Counties. The main livelihood in WES is based on agriculture. Some estimated 90 percent of the IDPs have managed to cultivate in the first 2011 agricultural season (June/July FSMS round 4 2011) either by the IDP camp or at their home fields. Therefore these IDPs are likely to have access to their own crop harvest in July and August thereby reducing the reliance on other food sources including food aid. There has been some dispute over land cultivated in the proximity of the camps. The assessment found out that the main source of food for most IDPs was food aid (51 percent). Own food production accounted for about 14 percent, and markets for 16 percent. IDPs also seem to have somewhat equal access to basic services and opportunities however increase in population has been identified as a burden to the host community which has often resulted in disagreement between IDPs and host community more especially over land. The sources of income generation by working households are available so in general IDPs should have reasonable access to food and services. The IDPs identified the poorest as the “classically” vulnerable people (elderly, disabled etc), people relying on day‐to‐day income and those who have a small scale farm as middle class whereas salaried employers, big scale farmers with several assets were the better‐off. Interestingly, several groups mentioned laziness and lack of interest to look for work as attributes for being poor. The unpredictable security situation still remains a major constraint to normal livelihood activities among the IDPs in WES. This has constrained agricultural activities in areas of origins for the IDPs and has been the main factor keeping the people displaced. Security and protection was the highest priority for the IDPs. In the light of the above, the following are some of the recommendations for the IDPs: • The Government should prioritize the provision of security/protection for the IDPs in their places of origin by

deploying security forces. • Local authorities should liaise with IDP leaders in sharing security related information and advise them about

the latest security situation. • Provide 3 months ration from June to August for IDPs who were displaced since January 2011. This ration

should cover the food needs until the harvest of short term crops in August 2011. • IDPs displaced more than one year ago should be phased‐out from any further food assistance in line with the

Government policy to reduce dependency on external assistance. • In case IDPs are displaced from locations in reasonable distance, the local authorities should support the IDPs

to access their own land as much as possible for cultivation, even if they should return to displacement locations to sleep.

• To encourage return after phase‐out of assistance for the long term IDPs, a return package containing seeds, tools, other non‐food items and a small food ration could be established. This requires coordination between Government and partners.

• Provision of additional social services such as water points, schools and health facilities in the areas of origin would make it attractive for IDPs to return to their homes.

• As a longer term solution to avoid food aid dependency, there should be a clear provided guideline on how long displaced persons/populations should be assisted, for how long and by whom.


5

Background Western Equatoria State (WES) borders Western Bahr el Ghazal State to the North, Warrap and Lakes to the East and Central Equatoria State (CES) to the South‐East. The State also has an international border with the Central African Republic (CAR) to the west and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to the South‐West and South. The State is generally considered a surplus food producing State of South Sudan. It has two planting and harvesting seasons and the land is fertile and suitable for crop diversification. In a normal year, agriculture and sale of the produce is the main livelihood for the families in the State. The rainfall starts normally in early March and lasts until November. Planting period starts in April for the first season and the second season starts around the second half of the year. Harvesting takes place from July and October onwards. However, following collapse of the negotiated peace agreement in Juba between the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) rebel leadership and the Government of Uganda in early 2008, repeated intermittent attacks by LRA in the WES displaced many residents thus Western Equatoria’s food production capabilities were compromised. The number of IDPs who relied on relief food assistance from humanitarian agencies between 2009 and 2010 increased up to 70,000. Ever since, the IDPs have been restrained from returning to their home areas as well as restricted from cultivating in far fields for fear of any random LRA attack. The implication was that small plots of land were cultivated as opposed to large fields cultivated by households in the past. The nature of the attacks has been sporadic all over the State since 2009 to date given the proximity with DRC and CAR where LRA have established their bases. At the time of the assessment, the general security situation in the six assessed Counties was relatively calm since September 2010 with only one incident taking place on 17th February 2011, where five people were abducted 17 miles North West of Tambura town. Continued assistance is likely to expose the people at a risk of developing food aid dependency syndrome which may be a factor in prolonging IDPs from easily integrating into host communities. Furthermore, in case of increase in other vulnerable people in need of assistance (such as referendum returnees), the resources should be allocated for those most in need. The interagency working group including UNOCHA, RCSO, IOM, UNICEF, UNHCR, FAO, WVI, CAFOD INTERSOS, SSRRC and the WES ministries raised the issue of IDPs and suggested an assessment to take place to evaluate IDP’s assistance needs. In addition to the request from the inter agency working group, the October 2010 Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission (CFSAM) recommended that close monitoring and possibly a survey be conducted among WES IDPs to understand the level of self‐reliance between new and old caseload (2010 vs. 2009/earlier) and what would be the needs of assistance to refugees and new IDPs (of 2010) until the next agricultural season of 2011. As a follow up, WFP, UN agencies and INGOs decided that an assessment be conducted to determine whether the IDPs in WES are food insecure and still need emergency support. This also to understand whether the IDPs and returnees are in similar situation and should they be treated equally. The inter‐agency assessment1 took place on 19th to 31st May 2011 lead by three WFP Programme staff from Equatoria Sub‐Office and reached up to 300 IDPs through 20 Focus Group Discussion interviews in Tambura, Ezo, Nzara, Yambio, Maridi and Ibba Counties of WES. 2 Objectives The main objective was to assess the food security situation of the IDPs affected by LRA insurgency in Yambio, Nzara, Ezo, Tambura, Ibba and Maridi Counties of WES The assessment also aimed to find out their possible needs and formulate an exit strategy for IDPs who have continuously been assisted up to 3 years.

1 Team composition as Annex 2


6

3 Methodology Six Counties were assessed and 20 focus group discussions (FGD)2 with 10‐15 participants per discussion were held in main IDP concentration areas in WES (Table 1). Additional selection criteria for the sampled locations were the duration of displacement, livelihood zones, security situation and accessibility. Table 1: Sampled locations

County # FGD

Yambio 6 Nzara 2 Maridi 3 Ibba 1 Ezo 4 Tambura 4 Total 20

The IDP representatives were mobilized by the assessment team in collaboration with SSRRC. One hampering issue was very quick timeline for the assessment without adequate coordination during planning stage to obtain the needed resources, including ground movement (shortage of cars and fuel). One limitation of the assessment is that the FGDs were conducted with variety of IDPs and the groups were not specific for IDPs displaced either in 2009 or 2010. Therefore the results are mostly applicable for the IDPs in general with only some information being representative for the displaced with different displacement durations. 4 Demographics and livelihoods

4.1 Livelihood groups In general about 50 percent of the IDPs rely on agriculture as a main source of livelihood and some additional 10 percent have also livestock activities (Table 2). Currently roughly at least 75 percent of the IDPs have access to land in their origin and/or around their current location for subsistence farming. However agricultural activities are hampered by unpredictable security situation and restricted access to farming land. Table 2: IDPs livelihood groups

Livelihood group Ezo Tambura Yambio Nzara Maridi Ibba

Subsistence farmer 42% 52% 51% 43% 42% 50%

Hunting/bee keeping/fishing etc 15% 10% 4% 15% 13% 33%

Casual labour 15% 17% 6% 14% 6% 0%

Agro pastoralist 11% 1% 11% 9% 23% 11%

Petty trade 9% 10% 12% 9% 3% 6%

Salaried labour 7% 10% 9% 6% 7% 0%

Small business 2% 0% 6% 6% 8% 0%

4.2 Income generation The major livelihood in WES is based on agriculture. Currently many of the IDPs rely on casual labour which they have to compete with the host population. They also rely on sale of natural resources, brewing and in less importance on sale of food aid.

2 Focus Group Discussion questionnaire as Annex 3


7

The IDPs indicated that short term changes from May to June will occur for charcoal burning as access will be reduced due to thick grown bushes and population concentrate on crop cultivation. Brewing sources will also reduce as season for mangoes will be over. From July to September income sources are also likely to change as some households can harvest and sale crops. The socio‐economic effect of LRA on IDP population has limited income generation activities and has also constrained petty trade, which is a common source of livelihood in many areas of South Sudan, including WES. 4.3 Who are poor, middle class and better‐off The IDPs were asked to describe who are poor, middle and better‐off in their communities and why is that. In general they identified the “classically” vulnerable people (elderly, disabled etc) as poor, people relying on day‐to‐day income and those who have a small scale farm as middle class whereas salaried employers, big scale farmers with several assets were the better‐off. Interestingly, several groups mentioned laziness and lack of interest to look for work as attributes for being poor whereas food aid recipients were considered to be “wealthy” (Table 3). Table 3: Community group classification

Class Who Why

Poor Widow (especially those with children), elderly, orphan, handicapped, disabled, female‐headed household Only one tukul, small scale farm or no land

Not able to do casual work, rely on support, One who does not want to work; lazy

Middle Working class; casual labourers, small scale farmers, petty traders Those who receive help from relatives or friends, Two tukuls, few children, small/average size land for cultivation

Hard‐working Produce food for own consumption Has possible safety nets Can hire some labour

Better‐off Civil servants, NGO workers, business owners, shop keepers, traders Big farms, 20‐50 bee hives Head wives, many children, big compound, 3‐4 tukuls for family use

Hard working, Have plenty of food at home (also variety), sell own production Receive food aid Has money and can hire labour, Has assets: bicycles, motorbike, car

5 Displacement Based on the assessment, some of the LRA affected IDPs have been displaced since 2008 while majority of the displacements have occurred during 2009 and 2010 (Table 4, Figure 1). Over time, some of the IDPs have been moving back and forth between their original and displacement locations as in general, during times when LRA activities in areas of their origin reduces, they return home while during increased insecurity they get displaced again. The most recent figures for IDPs are found as Annex 4. Table 4: Displacement statistics

Ezo Tambura Yambio Nzara Maridi Ibba

Main IDP influx 2009 2009 2009&2010 2009&2010 2009 2010# of IDPs 23,013 16,226 12,258 7,474 8,963 467Distance home (km) 7‐25 9‐75 Hours to go home (transport) 0.5 1 2.4 1 1.8 8Hours to go home (walking) 2‐12 3‐6 1‐48 5‐8 2‐12 24


8

Figure 1 shows the IDPs displacement statistics for WES since 2009. IDPs were displaced between January to December 2009 in all the assessed six Counties. About 7,000 new cases are reported between July and December 2010, mostly in Nzara and Yambio. In that light, only recently displaced IDPs in 2011 and those displaced in late 2010 may require some form of assistance for a few months to assist in their resettlement.

5.1 Shelter The majority of the IDPs live in temporary shelters which are constructed from local materials and plastic sheeting, provided by I/NGO operating in WES. In few communities, some IDPs are hosted or they live in a tukul. 5.2 Conditions for return In general the IDPs are eager and ready to return to their places of origin if government will grant maximum security by reinforcing the ‘arrow boys’ and in some cases, also by providing official soldiers. In addition to protection, it is important to ensure that basic facilities with adequate staff and supplies exist in their places of origin. 6 Access to services and basic needs The vast majority of the communities have available health, education, market and administrative facilities. The interviewed communities expressed access being somewhat equal for both IDPs and host communities. However, especially for schools there has been some dispute over admissions to schools as the residents are prioritized and IDP children are admitted only in case there is space in the class room. Reportedly more than half of the IDP households also say they do not have money to pay for the school fees and therefore children do not attend schools. In addition to regular government provided health care, IOM runs a mobile clinic for the IDPs. However, the groups reported lack of well trained medical personal and inadequate drug supply remaining a challenge. Some half of the IDPs may also lack money to pay for health care. There have not been any unusual disease outbreaks at the IDP locations during the assessment. Road network was felt in general mostly poor while some roads were in moderate condition. With improved road networks across the State, most IDPs and residents have access to markets and some IDPs are also selling fresh fruit in the main markets of Yambio and Nzara. Access to water (boreholes) has been one topic causing slight dispute between the IDPs and host community. Reasons for this are around the overall small number of water points and limited availability of water in those wells. Priority on water fetching is given to the hosts while IDPs in case of limited water availability are referred to the markets.

6.1 Assistance received As a rule, the IDPs are registered immediately after displacement and are issued with family token. The IDPs have received food aid in the last three months; in majority of the locations in April with two months ration. Some IDPs

0200040006000800010000120001400016000

Figure 1: LRA IDP displacement statistics for WES

Jan‐Jun 2009

Jul‐Dec 2009

Jan‐Jun 2010

Jul‐Dec 2010


9

claimed that a month food ration lasts only for 2‐3 weeks as they need to pay for grinding and they also exchange sorghum for cassava flour and other food. Few of the community groups identified receipt of food assistance as a symbol of being better‐off. This suggests that food is needed but the communities rely too much on it and may have developed dependency. Other assistance received was non food items such as plastic sheeting, water containers and utensils which were received almost immediately after displacement. 7 Agriculture WES has fertile land and it is often referred as the food basket of South Sudan with two cropping seasons. The common crops grown in the State are plenty; cassava, maize, rice, millet, beans and other legumes, groundnuts, sesame, sweet potato, various vegetables and greens among others. In general, ownership of land and access to own produced food are considered to reflect peoples’ status with more access and production equaling as being better‐off. Restricted access to farming land in the IDP settlement and the surroundings hampered food production in 2010 as due to LRA attacks before and during harvest season in 2010. IDPs reported that some of the crops were left on the fields, reducing food availability for some households. The IDP household’s farming status has showed a difference for the six Counties of WES. In the Eastern Counties of Ibba and Maridi, about 75 percent of the IDPs had access to harvest their crops cultivated last. In Ezo County, most of the IDPs have access to land in their places of origin for cultivation and thus more than 75 percent have partly cultivated and are expecting harvest between July and early August. The situation in Tambura is however different. Due to long distances from the villages of origin, the IDPs have very, limited access to land for cultivation partly due to fear of LRA attacks. As such land allocated was only within settlement areas. In Yambio and Nzara Counties, more than half of the IDP households have access to land in places of origin although fear of insecurity due to LRA does not allow the people to go very far from their settlement homes. Some IDPs have accessed their lands during the day for cultivation and some IDPs in the six Counties have moved back to the near‐by villages despite the unpredictable security situation. Despite the limited access to land, an average of 65‐80 percent of the IDPs have cultivated 1 to 3 feddans with most of their usual crops during the current season by using their own lands or the provided land around the IDP camps. The FGDs found out that there is some dispute over land between IDPs and host communities. In some cases IDPs are asked to pay for the land they cultivate. As some have however short distance to their original villages, they could be encouraged to cultivate their own land if their security is guaranteed all the way to harvesting. In general, the current major constraints for cultivation are insecurity resulting from intermittent LRA attacks, lack of access to land for cultivation and limited access to seeds and tools for those who can access some land. These constraints have cut across all the IDPs in the six Counties. 8 Food sources, consumption and market 8.1 Market The IDPs have equal access to markets in all the six Counties however some of the IDPs have low purchasing power compared to host community. In general, the prices have remained high due to intensified insecurity in 2010 which prevented crop planting and harvesting in some locations and restricted regular and consistent supply of food commodities. During FGDs, most


10

IDPs expressed poor roads, poor purchasing power (lack of money), and lack of surplus production for sale as well as fear of LRA attacks to public places the major factors affecting their access to market. A basin of cassava, commonly consumed cereal in WES used to cost 8‐10 SDG in 2010 in Tambura but the price has increased to 15‐20 SDG during the time of the assessment. Further, cassava flour price for a basin has increased from 15‐20 SDG to 28‐30 SDG. It remains to be seen how the improved security situation, road conditions and upcoming harvest along the Counties will develop but some positive impact is already observed as the number of traders and trade flow in general has significantly increased. Moreover, the fresh fruits in the main markets of Yambio and Nzara are supplied by IDPs. In comparison, the food availability in the markets in Tambura, Ezo, Nzara and Yambio, the western Counties of WES, is reportedly lower and limited due to poor food production in 2010 and limited trade flow due to unpredictable security situation compared to Ibba and Maridi, the Eastern Counties. 8.2 Food sources The majority of the IDPs relied on growing their own food before displacement and availability of food is also seen as an indicator of wealth. Currently, own production was source only for some 14 percent of the food consumed. Food aid was the main source covering 51 percent of the food and market provided further 16 percent. Some 7 percent of the food was obtained through exchange of labour. The households who have managed to cultivate in 2011 season, should have access to own production in July and August leading to reduced reliance to other sources. Fear of LRA and present of LRA remnants in the bush has hindered IDPs from accessing food via fishing, hunting, gathering of fire wood for cash/charcoal and honey harvesting. Security situation allowing, from June onwards, these sources may become available. 8.3 Food consumption The main food items eaten in these areas are cassava, groundnut, maize, rice, sorghum, sweet potato, and variety of beans and vegetables. The wealthier a household the more diverse the diet and more frequent the consumption of animal protein (meat, fish). The poorest consume the same food every day; mostly green leaves and can afford meat only on weekly basis. Also sauces are cooked mostly without oil. The IDP communities estimated that the proportion of poor people in the community varies from 15 to 95 percent and many of these people consume therefore the green leaf based diet. The reported number of daily meals was from 1 to 3 for adults with children consuming more meals than adults. 9 Community priorities

Most communities identified security and protection as the most important priority with food assistance being the second. Education, health care and safe drinking water were also reported (Figure 2).

0 5 10 15 20

Security

Food

Education

Health

Water

Figure 2: Community priorities identifiedin FGDs

1st

2nd

3rd


11

10 Discussion, conclusion and recommendations The assessment shows that the overall cause of displacement is the insecurity and it is evident that the IDPs are waiting for tangible actions to be taken to restore security before moving back. However, as there has been only one significant incident in 2011, the IDPs should be encouraged to return home and the government should take necessary actions to ensure that the areas of return are safe for the IDPs. This is also the top priority identified by the IDP households. The IDPs seem to have somewhat equal access to basic services and income generating activities as the host communities. With these similar opportunities for production and food access, displaced people after one year in the location should have settled and integrated in the community. Therefore IDPs who were displaced as early as 2009 should be able to meet their food needs and therefore should not be prioritized for any external food assistance. There was a general perception that households receiving food aid were better‐off according to the wealth ranking. This unusual attitude is likely to make food assistance a disincentive for local production and if continued in this form would be injurious to the IDPs’ livelihoods. Any subsequent food assistance should be provided with the conditionality that needy households with able‐bodied members should work for it. This would help to change the current perception that food aid is a luxury item. In addition, as agriculture in WES is the key livelihood, the IDPs could be convinced to access their lands e.g. by escorting them to their original locations not too far away from the IDP camps with provided protection so they would not depend anymore on assistance and would be self‐reliant. There were cases where a group of displaced in May 2009 expressed that they will be in bad situation if food assistance should stop which indicates very high dependency on food handouts. In general, people are categorized as residents after one year in the location as this should be adequate time for them to settle and be integrated in the community. The community indicating dependency was displaced 1‐5 hour walk from their villages and they should be able to access their homes somewhat easily if there is a will to re‐establish their livelihood instead of relying on the easy food access via free food handouts. Without doubt not everyone can return home at the moment but there should be clear guideline on how long the displaced persons should be assisted and on what conditions. In case of people who had been displaced since 1 year or longer, a sustainable solution should be found to get these people home or better integrated to host communities in long term. They should be allowed and also encouraged to cultivate short term crops and those who are interested to return home, provided with one‐off assistance package upon return. However, the main cause – security – should be addressed seriously first. Geographically, it was observed that counties towards the west such as Nagero, Ezo and Tambura were more affected by LRA incursions and fewer livelihood opportunities compared to counties towards the east such as Mundri, Yambio. Assistance to needy IDP households should target households from poor wealth‐groups who have been living in displacement for less than one year. This means that IDPs who were displaced in 2010 and earlier will be phased‐out. Any exceptionally food insecure households in this population category would assisted through a different modality that requires eligible members to work before receiving food assistance based on the findings of the June FSMS. From the above, the following are the medium term and long term recommendations for the IDPs in Western Equatoria State: • The Government should prioritize the provision of security/protection for the IDPs in their places of origin by

deploying security forces. • Local authorities should liaise with IDP leaders in sharing security related information and advise them about

the latest security situation. • Provide 3 months ration from June to August for IDPs who were displaced since January 2011. This ration

should cover the food needs until the harvest of short term crops in August 2011.


12

• IDPs displaced more than one year ago should be phased‐out from any further food assistance in line with the Government policy to reduce dependency on external assistance.

• In case IDPs are displaced from locations in reasonable distance, the local authorities should support the IDPs to access their own land as much as possible for cultivation, even if they should return to displacement locations to sleep.

• To encourage return after phase‐out of assistance for the long term IDPs, a return package containing seeds, tools, other non‐food items and a small food ration could be established. This requires coordination between Government and partners.

• Provision of additional social services such as water points, schools and health facilities in the areas of origin would make it attractive for IDPs to return to their homes.

• As a longer term solution to avoid food aid dependency, there should be a clear provided guideline on how long displaced persons/populations should be assisted, for how long and by whom.

Annex 1: Assessment team

13

Annex 1: Assessment team

Agency Name Title Location coveredWFP

• Isaac Azza • Apire Mark • Matiop Peter

Snr. Programme Assistant.Field Monitor Assistant Field Monitor Assistant.

Ezo and Tambura Counties.

CAFOD

• Emmanuel Lofugo • Simon Biando

SRRRC

• Rhina Natana • Franciscisco Francis • Jenty William • Albet Dabiera • Francis Juma • Charles

Sate Humanitarian officerSecretary Yambio County Deputy Secretary Yambio County Acting Secretary Yambio County Secretary Yambio County Deputy Secretary Ezo County

InterSoS

• Isaac Mungote • Elnama George • Wilson Kumbo • Mark Peter

Protection Monitoring Supervisor EzoLivelihood Expert Protection Monitor Makpandu Sector Committee Coordinator Makpandu

Ezo Yambio Maridi

Yambio

UNOCHA • John Kuzee National Field Officer Nzara & MaridiUNHCR •

•

WVI

• Emmanuel Ziwe • Ganiko Louis

Field Monitor AssistantProject Assistant

Yambio Yambio

IOM • Johnson David Operation Assistant Yambio FAO • Louis Bagare Field Agriculture Officer Yambio, Ibba &

Nzara UN RCSO • Robert Kenyi Samson Humanitarian Affairs Officer Ibba ,Nzara

Annex 2: Focus group questionnaire

14


Location: ________________________________________________________

Date: _________________________________________________________

X‐coordinates and Y‐coordinates: ______________________________________

Name of interviewer and note taker: ____________________________________

Limit key informants selected for focus group discussions to not more that 6 or 7

Composition of Interview:

Consider the following two interview strategies for each location:

Option 1: Interview 2 groups (1 Male and 1 Female) including 6‐7 key informants each from among the following.

a) Village chief b) NGO worker (national staff working in that village)

c) Subsistence Farmers d) Nurse/Health worker

e) Agro‐pastoralists f) Representative of the women’s group

g) Petty Traders h) Representative of the youth group

i) Teacher j) Agriculture Extension agent

k) Agriculture Extension agent

Option 2: Interview 2 groups (mixed male and female) including 6‐7 key informants divided into the following groups:

Group 1: Farmers Group 2: Salaried Workers

a) Village chief a) Teacher

b) Subsistence Farmers b) Agriculture / Livestock Extension Agent

c) Agro‐pastoralists c) Representative of the women’s group

d) Farmers (agricultural and / or livestock) d) NGO worker (national staff working in that village)

e) Fisher Folk e) Nurse/Health worker

f) Other

Instructions to Interviewer:

Introduce yourselves and advise that you are conducting an assessment of the food security situation of families in ____________. Also explain the objectives of the interview: i.e. that you are interested in finding out about events in the village and how these events have affected households' livelihoods.


15

Section 1 – Population Movement and demographic Information (approximately)

Movement to/from Site:

1.1 Which types of settlements are there?

a) Communities / villages b) Community Shelters (e.g. schools) c) Temporary Settlement d) other …

Explain: Who is living where and why?

1.2 How long does it take to go to your original home? Mention the time taken when travelling by public transport and by foot.

Public transport: __________________ Hours Foot: _________________________Hours

1.3 When were the people displaced? (Note time period. If different displaced groups have arrived – indicate origins of each group.)

2008

JAN FEB MAR APR

MAY JUN JUL AUG

SEP OCT NOV DEC

2009

JAN FEB MAR APR

MAY JUN JUL AUG

SEP OCT NOV DEC

2010

JAN FEB MAR APR

MAY JUN JUL AUG

SEP OCT NOV DEC

1.4 Have people been registered? If yes by which institutions?

1.5 What is the relationship between the displaced and host communities in sharing resources and services?

1.6 Do the IDPs have equal access to services and economic opportunities? If no, give explanation.

1.7 Under what conditions will displaced return to their homes? What are the main factors preventing the return home of the displaced? If these conditions are not met will they move to a new location for temporary settlement or remain in the current location? Please Explain …

Section 2 –Shelter and Essential Services 2.1 What types of shelter are available for the IDPs?

(a) Temporary (b) Semi‐permanent (c) Permanent (d) Other

What types of locally‐sourced materials are being used to build or adapt shelters?

2.2 What types of services are available in the location? Tick all that apply.

Health facility Market School Administrative center Road network

Poor Moderate Good

Explain your observation.


16

Section 3 –Livelihood Groups

How many types of livelihood groups exist amongst the displaced,

and in what proportions roughly?

% (use Proportional Piling)

Livelihood Strategies ‐ Before the Displacement

General Comments: Note any comments coming from the group and highlight differences between socio‐economic groups, “Poor, middle and Better‐Off”.

Subsistence farmers

Agro pastoralists

Casual workers (agriculture / non agriculture

Petty traders

Small Business Owners (Retailer / Trade)

Salaried Worker

Other

Obtain comments from the group on their perception on the ability of hhs to continue these activities during displacement. What are the opportunities and constraints? Ask the group to describe in their own words the “Poor”, “Middle” and “Better‐off” people within their community

Section 4 –agriculture, 4.1 4.1.1 What types of crops are cultivated in this area?

4.1.2 What was the status of household farms at the time of displacement?

4.1.3 What was the proportion of households that cultivated last year?

4.1.4 How was crop harvest last year? Do you still have stock available at household level?

Try to gain an understanding of what proportion of IDP households still have access to their farms. Also try to determine any plans to cultivate in the current location. If you have time try a proportional piling exercise.

4.1.5 What are the current constraints to cultivation? Also try to obtain information on issues related to access to agricultural land.


17

Section 5– FOOD Sources

5.1

Where do people currently get their food? Percent

Obtain comments from the group on their perception of the income sources compared to usual this time of year (prior to displacement). Also highlight differences between socio‐economic groups, “Poor, middle and Better‐Off”. Mention what commodities are obtained from each source. You can discuss this around the proportional pilling of food sources

a) Own Production

b) Market Purchases

c) Hunting, fishing and gathering

d) Exchange labour/items for food

e) Borrowing

f) Gift from friends, relatives

g) Food Aid (NGO’s, GOVT, WFP)

h) Other

5.2

5.2.1 Will the source of food change in the short – term?

5.2.2 If yes, how and why

- May to June Period:

- July to September period:

5.3 On average, how long will food stocks last in the households?

5.4

5.4.1 What are the main foods eaten in this area?

5.4.2 How often do people normally eat these different foods?

5.4.3 In normal times, how does the diet of the poor differ from that of the better‐off? Mention the type of food and how often are they consumed in a week (frequency).

5.4.4 How many people in this community would be considered poor, and consume this reduced diet, in normal times? Proportional piling may be used

5.4.5 How many people in this community are not able to eat the reduced diet? Identified in response 4. Proportional piling may be used to determine proportions


18

Section 6–:Income Sources

6.1

Where do people currently get their income?

Percent

Obtain comments from the group on their perception of the income sources compared to usual this time of year (prior to displacement). Also highlight differences between socio‐economic groups, “Poor, middle and Better‐Off”.

You can discuss this around the proportional pilling of income sources

Sale of Cereals

Sale of Livestock / Animal Products

Wage Labour (Skilled and Salaried)

Casual Labour Employment

Sale of Charcoal, firewood, grass

Borrowing

Remittances

Begging

Brewing

Food Aid Sales

6.2

6.2.1 Will the source of income change in the short – term?

If so, how and why

- May to June Period:

- July to September period:

6.2.2 Is there a market in this location? If yes, what is the type of the market? How far is the market?

6.2.3 Access to Markets ‐ What are the three (3) main factors affecting market accessibility?

Section 7. Food Aid

7.1

7.1.1 Has food aid been distributed in the last 3 months?

7.1.2 How were beneficiaries selected?


19

7.2

7.2.1 What was the actual ration per person provided at the last distributions in the past 3 months? (need to probe if the beneficiary feels their actual ration matched what they think is their entitlement).

7.2.2 On average, how much food did households actually take home? (Transportation costs, redistribution etc may have reduced the take home ration).

7.2.3 How was the food used? ( have open conversation but want to find out if some food is sold and why compared to what amount is eaten and/or used in other ways)

7.2.4 On average, how long did the food last?

7.3 Rank top three community priorities for assistance. (USE CODES BELOW)

(E.g. Clinics, veterinary services, food assistance etc.)

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3

1= Security/Protection

2 = Food aid/other food assistance

3 = Cash Assistance

4 = Health Assistance

5 = Drinking Water

6 = Shelter/Housing

7 = Seeds

8 = Tools

9 = Fishing equipment

10. Education services

11. Return to original village

12. Road repairs 13. Reintegration

14. Credit

15. Other _________________________

Try to obtain an understanding how the priorities may differ between different Socio‐economic group and gender.

Annex 3: LRA affected IDPs in WES

20

Annex 3: LRA Affected IDPs in Western Equatoria

County Location Caseload Month of

displacement Duration of assistance

(Months) NFI's Assistance

Ezo

Naandi 5,596 Mar‐09 24 By IOM, CAFOD & WVIAndari 1,622 Mar‐09 24Yangiri 1,280 Jul‐09 22Diabio 1,522 Mar‐09 24

Ezo 12,993 Jul‐09 22 23,013

Tombura

Zangia 4,173 Jul‐09 22Nabaria 2,683 Jul‐09 22Wau road 2,353 Jul‐09 22Sinakpuro 351 Jul‐09 22Kapangima 1,551 Jul‐09 22Bazanda 1,740 Jul‐09 22Tombura 2,055 Jun‐09 23Source Yubu 1,320 Jun‐09 23

16,226

Yambio

Timbiro 1,059 Sep‐09 20Shuksiro 2,341 Mar‐10 14Malakia 2,768 Oct‐09 19Riboda 2,186 Oct‐10 19Gangura 1,227 Jul‐09 22Asanza 837 Mar‐10 14VTC 638 Mar‐10 14Yambio 542 Oct‐09 19Kasia 660 Aug‐10 21 12,258

Nzara Nzara 3,408 Nov‐09 18Nzara 4,066 Sep‐10 8 7,474

Nagero Namutina 2,020 Aug‐09 21Ibba Ibba center 467 Nov‐10 6

Maridi Khazan 5,374 Feb‐09 27Mboroko 3,589 Feb‐09 27

11,450 Grand Total 70,421

lra affected i dp assessment - world food...

Documents