south sudan food secuirty and livelihoods report

17
Assessment Report: Ganyliel, Payinjar, Unity State, South Sudan 16 June 2014 From Harm To Home | Rescue.org Sector: Food Security and Livelihoods Contact(s): George Bete, [email protected] Data Collection: 26 May to 4June 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents results and findings from the International Rescue Committee’s (IRC) Emergency Food Security and Livelihoods (EFSL) assessment, which was conducted in Ganyliel from the 26 th of May to the 4 th of June 2014 in response to the influx of internally displaced persons (IDPs) from neighboring areas, in particular: Mingkaman, Bentiu, Nyal and Rumbek. The assessments objective was to understand the effect of the current conflict on the IDP and host communitiesfood security and livelihoods (FSL) situation and to identify needs and priorities for response. A total of six IDP sites in Ganyliel were visited for the assessment, namely: Pachar, Pachak, Tiap, Thornom, Panyijiar, and Pachienjok. The assessment team conducted nine focus group discussions (FGDs) and eight key informant interviews (KIIs). Market information was gathered through interviews with seven traders in the main local market of Greater Ganyliel. Direct observations, including transact walks in the IDP and host community locations were critical in data triangulation. The tools used for data collection are available as annexes to this report. A Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) needs assessment for Unity State reported that prior to the conflict, in Payinjar County food insecurity had risen throughout 2013 reporting the highest levels of severe food insecurity in South Sudan. 1 With access and trade routes having been disrupted by insecurity, it seems as if Ganyliel, a payam 2 in Payinjar County, Unity State is now under ‘siege’. During this period in a normal year, the population in this area would survive on markets for food. However, with trade greatly disrupted and supply chains broken by the conflict, families are suffering from dire food insecurity. The assessment revealed that there is an urgent need to address the food and livelihoods situation in Ganyliel. Most of the IDP and host community families were self-sustaining before the crisis, but now they are living without livelihoods or income-generating opportunities, harvests and livestock were devastated by flooding in the last two years, and current food supplies are severely limited by the conflict, leaving these families with very little to eat, waiting helplessly for external assistance. Although a new supply market in Duk has emerged for Ganyliel following disruptions of major trade by the ongoing disaster, the flow of goods into Ganyliel is still distressed. Traders are facing challenges in transporting commodities into Ganyliel. They are mainly focusing on staple food products, however not 1 FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to South Sudan 20 February 2014: http://www.wfp.org/foodsecurity/reports/CFSAM 2 In local administration hierarchy, a payam is almost equivalent to a district.

Upload: betegeorge

Post on 15-Jul-2015

86 views

Category:

Government & Nonprofit


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

Assessment Report: Ganyliel, Payinjar, Unity State, South Sudan

16 June 2014

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

Sector: Food Security and Livelihoods

Contact(s): George Bete, [email protected]

Data Collection: 26 May to 4June 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents results and findings from the International Rescue Committee’s (IRC) Emergency

Food Security and Livelihoods (EFSL) assessment, which was conducted in Ganyliel from the 26th of May

to the 4th of June 2014 in response to the influx of internally displaced persons (IDPs) from neighboring

areas, in particular: Mingkaman, Bentiu, Nyal and Rumbek. The assessment’s objective was to

understand the effect of the current conflict on the IDP and host communities’ food security and

livelihoods (FSL) situation and to identify needs and priorities for response.

A total of six IDP sites in Ganyliel were visited for the assessment, namely: Pachar, Pachak, Tiap,

Thornom, Panyijiar, and Pachienjok. The assessment team conducted nine focus group discussions

(FGDs) and eight key informant interviews (KIIs). Market information was gathered through interviews

with seven traders in the main local market of Greater Ganyliel. Direct observations, including transact

walks in the IDP and host community locations were critical in data triangulation. The tools used for data

collection are available as annexes to this report.

A Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) needs assessment for Unity State reported that prior to the

conflict, in Payinjar County food insecurity had risen throughout 2013 reporting the highest levels of

severe food insecurity in South Sudan.1 With access and trade routes having been disrupted by

insecurity, it seems as if Ganyliel, a payam2 in Payinjar County, Unity State is now under ‘siege’. During

this period in a normal year, the population in this area would survive on markets for food. However, with

trade greatly disrupted and supply chains broken by the conflict, families are suffering from dire food

insecurity. The assessment revealed that there is an urgent need to address the food and livelihoods

situation in Ganyliel. Most of the IDP and host community families were self-sustaining before the crisis,

but now they are living without livelihoods or income-generating opportunities, harvests and livestock

were devastated by flooding in the last two years, and current food supplies are severely limited by the

conflict, leaving these families with very little to eat, waiting helplessly for external assistance.

Although a new supply market in Duk has emerged for Ganyliel following disruptions of major trade by the

ongoing disaster, the flow of goods into Ganyliel is still distressed. Traders are facing challenges in

transporting commodities into Ganyliel. They are mainly focusing on staple food products, however not

1 FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to South Sudan 20 February 2014: http://www.wfp.org/foodsecurity/reports/CFSAM 2 In local administration hierarchy, a payam is almost equivalent to a district.

Page 2: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

with the variety and quantities of goods enough to promote a competitive market system. Consequently

this is pushing prices of these goods out of reach of the general community.

Therefore, program interventions that enhance access to food commodities should be given top priority.

As immediate interventions, humanitarian players should consider supporting and reviving markets in

Greater Ganyliel. This will promote availability and accessibility of food and non-food items for the

affected communities. Alternatively, ways to implement a general food distribution to the Ganyliel

community should be considered. In the longer term, assistance to communities in consideration to their

previous livelihoods is crucial to restore their livelihoods and recovery from the shock. Thus humanitarian

aid which promotes self-reliance to reduce the identified gap in own food production and in threats to

livelihoods should be considered.

INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION

Massive displacements have been happening throughout South Sudan due to fighting that erupted in

Juba on the 15th of December 2013. Much of the conflict has taken place in Upper Nile, Jonglei and Unity

states,3 resulting in the loss of people’s lives, their assets and disastrous damage to their livelihoods.

Thousands of people living in these states have fled for their lives, leaving behind everything they own.

The payam of Ganyliel, located in Payinjar County in Unity State, is an area surrounded by swamps, and

so considered not easily accessed by armed groups. As a result, it has seen a significant influx of IDPs

from the surrounding areas of Mingkaman, Bentiu, Nyal, Rumbek, Panyijiar headquarters and even from

Juba. Ganyliel is a predominantly Nuer community which is currently under the control of Government

Opposing Forces who are in support of Riek Machar. Most of the Nuer people who were in Dinka areas

close to Panyijiar County including in places which are now Government controlled fled to Ganyliel for

their safety. According to the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, currently nearly 39,000 displaced

individuals are residing among an equally impoverished host community of approximately 37,000

individuals whose resources have been devastated by the current fighting and recent flooding.

At the time of carrying this assessment, the humanitarian situation in Ganyliel was at a critical stage: the

needs are massive, yet there is little humanitarian activity addressing immediate pressing food security

needs. Although the World Food Program (WFP) has been making airdrops, and the IRC & Medair

implementing nutrition support programs, targeting infants and children less than five years old, FSL gaps

still exist. The majority of the IDP and host community families are struggling to put food on their tables.

Key Informants reported that the situation in Ganyliel is not expected to improve in the foreseeable future. IDPs report that fighting continues in the area, with unpredictable attacks. Since violent attacks are generally based on tribal differences, many live in fear of ambushes. Participants in five of the FGDs interviewed confirmed that many IDPs do not plan to return to their places of origin soon. This prolonged stay of IDPs among an equally strained host community, with no functioning markets and overstretched resources, increases the risk of more families going hungry, especially if immediate action is not taken to address current conditions.

STATEMENT OF INTENT The EFSL assessment intended to gather data on the well-being and food security situation of IDPs and

of the community hosting them. Information regarding issues affecting their food security situation and

their livelihoods was collected based on the following objectives:

3 Interim Report on Human Rights Crisis in South Sudan (February 2014) http://unmiss.unmissions.org/Portals/unmiss/Documents/PR/Reports/HRD%20Interim%20Report%20on%20Crisis%202014-02-21.pdf

Page 3: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

Objective(s)

a. Identify vulnerable groups in Ganyliel who are at risk of sliding into food insecurity;

b. Identify current livelihoods and income-generating opportunities for special groups in communities

that include IDPs, women, youth, children, physically disabled and the elderly;

c. Identify and delineate livelihoods groups within targeted geographical locations, and for each

group identify barriers and risks to livelihoods and food security;

d. Identify livelihood opportunities that can be supported to enhance food security and income-

earning opportunities of identified livelihoods groups;

e. Identify barriers to services, programs, and opportunities available to target populations;

f. Examine current IDP livelihood strategies, mechanisms, and skills or resource gaps related to

livelihoods, food security and income-earning opportunities; and

g. Identify the current coping mechanisms of vulnerable communities and seek ways of mitigating

harmful behaviors.

Core Questions

What is the effect of the current conflict on the IDP and host communities’ FSL situation?

Which groups of people and individuals are food insecure/secure as a result of the crisis?

Which livelihoods activities/groups have been most affected by the crisis?

What is the condition of markets in the affected areas?

What are the FSL priority needs of the affected population?

METHODOLOGY

This was an EFSL assessment that collected information to gain an understanding of the extent to which

the current conflict in South Sudan poses risks to food security and or livelihoods. Results will be used to

draw conclusions and to come up with recommendations, which will be used to design FSL responses.

The assessment sought to identify groups within communities who have been, or are at risk of being,

affected by the current conflict. At the beginning of the assessment, desk review of sources reporting on

the Ganyliel situation was carried to gain an understanding of the current context. FGDs, each comprising

up to twelve people, were arranged, in each location visited. FGD participants were selected to be

representative of particular livelihood groups in each of the assessed areas. Semi-structured

questionnaires, proportional piling and guidance sheets were used to gather information during FGDs.

Key Informants (KIs) who were considered to have an in-depth knowledge of a community within a

selected location were identified and KIIs were arranged. KIs interviewed included local officials, County

Officials, South Sudan Relief & Rehabilitation Council (RRC) representatives, village heads,

representatives of other humanitarian organisations, veterinarians and fishermen groups. A checklist was

used to collect relevant data on the FSL situation in their locations.

Transact walks and direct observation were used to triangulate data collected, and to take note of the

livelihoods activities being practiced by communities. The assessment team also observed the condition

of people and livestock in the visited locations, interactions between people, access routes to markets

and the state of the market itself.

Limitations

Due to some areas being inaccessible because of weather conditions at the time of this assessment,

primary data could not be gathered from such localities. For example, the assessment team was unable

Page 4: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

to visit Tayar port, as planned, to assess the flow of goods from Duk to Ganyliel and to meet with the

fishermen groups leasing canoes to traders. Furthermore, information given by Ganyliel Traders

regarding the Duk supply market could have been better verified by interviewing Duk suppliers to gain an

understanding of the downstream supply chain. In some areas it was difficult to get participants who were

a true representation of a specific livelihood group since some of the FGDs were organized with little

advanced notice.

Ethical Considerations

Before entering into the communities to gather data, the assessment team started with an official meeting

with the County Commissioner. The team explained the purpose, objectives, target population and the

schedule of the assessment. A courtesy call to the Deputy Coordinator of the RRC was also made. Both

of these local officials provided input into the selection of areas that were assessed- based on their

understanding of the number IDP populations and of affected communities in those locations. The RRC

Coordinator also provided the team with the figures and data on the affected communities in Payinjar

County, both for host and IDP communities. In the communities, during data gathering, participatory

methods and tools were deployed to generate first hand information from local sources.

KEY FINDINGS

A. Livelihoods

i. Farming

According to the FGDs, both the host and IDP communities are predominantly Agro-pastoralists.

Proportional piling4 for the main livelihoods practiced by the IDP population in their original places

revealed that 60% of their livelihoods came from agriculture, and 30% of the communities also keep

livestock. For both the IDP and host communities, the main staple crop is sorghum, which is cultivated

both in compounds and sometimes on land that is far from the dwellings. Both IDP and host communities

cultivate maize. During the primary growing season sorghum covers most of the cultivatable land, maize

usually takes nearly a quarter and groundnuts a small potion. However, maize is sometimes planted late

in the secondary planting season, which begins in August as indicated on the seasonal calendar below.

According to the FGDs, usually families prefer to consume maize first and store sorghum for the lean

season as it has a longer shelf life. However, when a family produces a surplus of maize, it can be stored

for the lean season as well. Sorghum is a staple food for most families and is consumed at almost every

meal, according to six out of the nine FGDs. Okra, simusimu, eggplant, kudhura, tomatoes and pumpkins

are normally planted during the rainy season and sometimes in vegetable gardens near swamps. All

these constitute family diets in normal years.

4 Proportional piling is an assessment tool that uses tangible items (i.e. seeds, rocks/pebbles) and allows FGD

participants to demonstrate degrees of importance or ratios of stock in different contexts to come up with estimate percentages for the topic under discussion.

Page 5: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

Figure 1: Seasonal Calendar for Ganyliel- Panyijiar County

Activity May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Land preparation for farming season

Planting; sorghum, millet- (1st

planting season)

Planting Maize & Millet

(secondary planting period)

Planting vegetables: Kudhura,

simusimu, okra, onions, tomato

Harvesting Sorghum

Harvesting Maize & Millet

Rainy Season

Dry Season

Lean/hunger period

High fishing Activities

Livestock milk availability

Five FGDs report that over the last year, as pressure on food mounted, many families ate their seeds.

Which means that this year most families in the host community did not cultivate land as they normally

would, and are only, cultivating small pieces of land after planting the few seeds they managed to save.

Both IDP and host community families are hoping to plant maize in the secondary farming season, which

normally begins in August (refer to the seasonal calendar in Figure 1, above), if they get humanitarian

assistance. The same number of FGDs confirmed that most IDPs are not engaged in farming activities

because they were forced to abandon their land and tools when they fled to Ganyliel. Though most IDP

families now settled in Ganyliel have access to land, they cannot farm because they have no access to

seeds or tools. A few male IDPs originally from Payinjar headquarters, a four-hour walk from Ganyliel, are

going back to prepare land, borrow a few seeds from extended family and plant maize. According to

some IDPs, especially those who came from areas such as Mingkaman, Bentiu, Nyal and Leer, they

might stay in Ganyliel for quite a while depending on the security situation in their places of origin.

ii. Livestock

According to five FGDs, about 30% of the IDP community depended on livestock before the crisis, and a

similar proportion of the host community also depended primarily on livestock. Even livestock keepers

practice farming as livestock are predominantly kept for milk, marriage, to pay ransoms, and for prestige.

Nevertheless, during lean periods, animals are a source of income and or barter to access food. Shoats

(goats & sheep) are sometimes slaughtered to provide meat for the family. All FGDs confirmed that

communities rarely slaughter cattle to consume at the family level unless for ceremonies or celebrations.

Four FGDs and some KIs reported that the number of host community livestock has declined over the

past two years because of floods, diseases, and or animal raids. Livestock diseases, especially Peste des

Petits Ruminants, Black Quarter, Hemorrhagic Septicemia and diarrhea are still common in Ganyliel and

have been contributing to the deaths of animals. Currently, due to the food insecurity crisis, families are

selling more animals than usual at low prices in order to buy food. This is contributing to further reduction

in livestock numbers at the household level. According to a wealth group ranking by six FGDs, the

number of cattle required to qualify as wealthy has decreased from 100 to 40. All the FGDs reported that

IDPs lost their livestock during their displacement.

iii. Fishing

Page 6: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

Fishing supplements many diets in Ganyliel, and is practiced in the Nile river, Munyudeng river and

swamps. From Ganyliel, it takes an average of three hours to walk to the nearest major rivers for fishing.

Proportional pilling revealed that between 15% and 20% of IDP and host communities fish as part of their

livelihood activities. Fishing is mainly done with nets and hooks. Although organized fishermen groups

already exist in the host communities, both FGDs and KIs indicate that fishing has been affected by a lack

of fishing tools. In all FGDs, the same plight was highlighted for the IDPs fish as part of their livelihoods in

their areas of origin.

iv. Current and future livelihoods activities

Data was collected from all the FGDs on what livelihoods activities are happening now and what activities

have the potential of getting started in the next two months. This analysis gave a good picture of

livelihoods now and what may be needed to start or scale up activities in the next two months. Table 1,

below, is a snapshot of the livelihood activities, due to start, re-start or continue within the next 2 months.

Table 1: Livelihood activities now and in the next 2 months

Livelihood

Activities

now & next 2

months

Gender When

usually

starts

Approx

% of HH

involved

Can it be

started

in the

next 2

months?

Assets required to start, re-start or

continue, the activities

Asset

type

Specifications Quantity

/ HH

1. Farming M and F May-July

Aug (maize

& millet)

80 % Yes Tools Jembe, panga, fork,

hoe, axe

1 of each

type

Seeds Maize, Millet, nuts 3kgs

2. Fishing M and F High

activity is

during rainy

season

20% Yes Fishing

tools

Nets

Hooks 20

3. Raising

Livestock

M and F Anytime 30% Yes Cattle,

goats,

sheep

Not assessed Not

assessed

4. Vegetable

Gardens

M and F Anytime

(high

activity is

during the

rainy

season)

40% Yes Seeds Kudhura, cabbage,

tomatoes,

Sukumawiki, carrots,

egg plant, onions

175 gm/

variety

Tools Jembe, panga, fork,

hoe

1 of each

type

5. Poultry F Anytime Not

assed

Yes Indigeno

us

Chicken

n/a n/a

v. Overall Analysis of the livelihoods situation in Ganyliel

Data collected during the assessment reflected that farming of both staple and vegetable crops has been

the livelihood activity most-affected by the crisis, and therefore requires immediate intervention from the

humanitarian community. Fishing also needs humanitarian intervention as those who engage in this

activity lack the necessary tools to continue their livelihoods. Whilst host communities still possess

livestock and are receiving animal health assistance from humanitarian actors such as Veterinaries Sans

Frontieres - Suisse, the IDP families may need a re-stocking program. Small ruminants, which are easily

disposable either through barter or sale in the market for food and income, could be distributed to

vulnerable communities. This would assist such families whose livelihood was mainly based on raising

livestock recover from the crisis. Seeds and tools, as detailed in the table above, could also be distributed

to families.

Page 7: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

B. Income and Expenditure

i. Income

Both the IDP and host communities’ sources of income have been greatly affected by the crisis.

According to KIs and FGDs, during normal years families earn income through collecting and selling

firewood, collecting and selling grass, waged employment, selling of livestock and remittances from

relatives. Many people are still collecting and selling grass and firewood, as well as wild fruits, waged

income and remittances have been affected as many people are out of employment due to the ongoing

violence. However, FGD participants revealed that due to escalating costs of leaving, the little money that

is earned from these activities is not sufficient to sustain families. Meanwhile, a new source of income has

also emerged for women. Traders are engaging women to carry bags of sorghum by head from the

Ganyliel port to the market for the paltry amount of 10 South Sudan Pounds (SSP), just enough to buy a

few grams of salt. Table 2, below, ranks the current sources of income for the assessed communities.

Table 2: Income earning Opportunities of the Panyijiar Community

# Activity Rank Income Realised/Comments

1 Selling livestock (host community) 1 Average price for cattle is SSP 450, goat is SSP 150,

2 Collecting and selling firewood 2 A small bundle is SSP 1

3 Collecting and selling grass 3 A small bundle is SSP 1

4 Transporting traders’ commodities on

foot

2 Carrying one 50kg bag of Sorghum for a distance of

approximately two miles at SSP 10. Amount not enough to

buy 3.5 kg of sorghum (enough for a single meal for a

family of five), which costs SSP 40 in local market.

One source of income for the host community is selling some of their animals. Many people have resorted

to selling more animals than usual in order to buy food, but they are unable to get good prices for their

animals because demand is so low. According to all FGDs interviewed, demand for livestock has

decreased as few traders are utilizing this opportunity to buy cattle at low prices in anticipation of selling

at a profit once the situation normalizes.

ii. Expenditure

The expenditure pattern for host communities is similar to IDP communities at their place of origin. In a

normal year, during this time of the year, the lean season, the most predominant expenditure is food,

followed by investing in livestock assets, and purchase of productive assets. Last year’s poor harvest,

displacements, lack of income-earning opportunities and escalation of market prices makes food to still

remain a top priority on their spending patterns for the past two years and now. Please refer to Table 3,

below, to have better understanding of the expenditure pattern of the communities.

Table 3: Households expenses for a Nuer community – Pre- and Post-Crisis Periods

# Expenses Rank

(Pre-

Crisis)

Rank

(Post

crisis)

Remarks

1 Food 1 1 Sorghum, cooking oil, sugar, salt, meat/fish,

wheat flour, onions

2 Human Health Care 4 2 Drugs

3 Invest in livestock assets 2 Cattle, goats, sheep,

Page 8: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

4 Animal Health care 5 Currently Veterinaries Sans Frontieres - Suisse is

carrying animal vaccination campaigns

5 Education 4

6 Purchase of productive assets 3 Seeds, Fishing and Farming tools

7 Re/Construction of Houses 4

C. Food Situation

According to the current food security phase classification by Famine Early Warning Systems Network

(FEWSNET) all of Panyijiar County, including Ganyliel payam, is in emergency phase (IPC 4). This

means that people are unable to meet basic survival needs even with extreme coping mechanisms, such

as selling all of their livestock.5 KIs and FGDs that participated in this assessment mentioned food as an

urgent and the highest priority for all IDPs and host communities (refer to Table 3, above). Households’

food and livelihoods resources have been stretched to the limit, and families are relying mostly on wild

food sources such as water lilies and fruit from surrounding forests.

Table 4, below, details the food sources for an average household during this time of the year. It shows

comparisons for the pre- and post-crisis periods as revealed through proportional piling, along with the

impact of the conflict on the various food sources.

Table 4: IDP Food Sources and Food Gaps (Access and Availability Pre- & Post-Crisis)

# Sources Pre-

Crisis

(%)

Post-

Crisis

(%)

Comments

1 Purchases 20 5 Sources of income including sell of livestock (host

communities) at reasonable prices to buy food have been

greatly affected. Markets are not functioning,

2 Own Agric Production 30 0 For host communities: own food has been reduced to 5%

whilst for IDPs it is 0%. Own food for host communities

includes consumption of seeds and vegetables.

3 Own Livestock–Milk,

Meat

20 0 Post conflict for host families with animals its 10%. IDPs’

reliance on livestock is 0%.

4 Gifts/Charity/Neighbors 5 10 Community is sharing with other each other.

5 Labor (paid in

food/cash)

5 0 No more labor opportunities exist, head-porting sorghum for

traders is considered insignificant.

6 Relief/Food Aid 10 5 WFP air drops are currently not meeting needs.

7 Gathering wild fruits 10 20 Families are relying on the forest for wild vegetables, fruits and

on water lily roots.

Gap 60

Total Percentage 100% 100%

According to the data collected, most IDP households are facing a 60% gap in the food they can access

now compared to before the crisis, and a similar gap exists for host communities. Even before the crisis,

many host communities were facing a food deficit because of the poor 2013 harvest when crops were

damaged by floods. All FGDs confirmed that for IDPs the 2013 harvest, which was left in home storage

facilities when they fled, was either looted, burnt or abandoned during the conflict. These stressors have

resulted in a significant reduction in food consumed from own production. Purchasing power has also

5 FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to South Sudan 20 February 2014: http://www.wfp.org/foodsecurity/reports/CFSAM

Page 9: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

reduced significantly because of price increases and the fact communities’ lack of income-earning

opportunities. Without external assistance affected communities will not be able to cover their gap in

needs.

Access to Food

Currently, there is limited humanitarian activity to address access to food by communities in the

immediate term. The conflict and insecure transport routes prevented WFP, the major humanitarian actor

in Ganyliel food distributions, and market actors from being able to pre-position food stocks as usual to

cover the hunger gap in the lean season. The small airstrip in Ganyliel cannot accommodate large aircraft

to land with cargo. Therefore, WFP has been making airdrops of food. However, according to KIs and all

FGDs, since the crisis happened in December 2013, WFP has only managed to carry two airdrops, on

the 24th of March and the 22

nd of May 2014. Each airdrop provided 7.5kg of sorghum, 700gm of lintel and

420gm of cooking oil per individual; food rations enough for only 15 days. All FGDs confirmed that

because families cannot access food, or even food assistance, they are largely depending on gathering

wild fruits and water lilies for basic survival. Consequently, malnutrition rates are soaring. A recent IRC

Nutritional Anthropometry and Mortality Survey in Ganyliel found that the Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM)

rate is 31.6%, and the Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) rate is 9.7%. These malnutrition rates are

significantly higher than the acceptable thresholds of 15% for GAM and 4% for SAM in South Sudan.6

Fishing, which could have otherwise cushioned most families from severe hunger, is not possible

because the communities do not have the necessary fishing equipment. The forests have recently been a

major source of food for many families, However many KIs report that, with the rains coming, and the

influx of IDPs in the area, the wild fruits have been nearly exhausted.

Food Utilisation

The assessment also looked at family diets pre- and

post-crisis. According to six FGDs, diets have

changed (see Table 6, below) as have number of

meals consumed in a day. Currently, most people

are consuming a single light meal in the evening

mainly composed of wild vegetables, wild fruits and

sometimes sorghum. Some families have gone a full

day without eating anything, because they have no

access to food. In normal years, most families would

consume at least two meals a day, with light foods

such as groundnuts consumed in-between meals.

This difference between pre- and post-crisis

consumption illustrates how dire the food security

situation is in Ganyliel. Further deterioration in food

security is likely given the current reduction in

farming activity, the significantly reduced income

paired with high prices for staple foods, and families’

6 Nutritional Anthropometry and Mortality Surveys Panyijiar County; Unity State, Republic of South Sudan April 2014

Page 10: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

inability to reach markets.7 Without urgent action, this deterioration, in combination with high existing

levels of malnutrition and mortality, suggests that famine (IPC Phase 5) is possible in Ganyliel in the

coming next few months8.

The table below details which food types were consumed in a 24-hour period before the conflict (typical

day) and after the conflict (now) by IDPs, to calculate the average Household Dietary Diversity Score

(HDDS); see the bottom row of the table for HDDS before and after the crisis.

Table 5: Household Dietary Diversity Score

Food Type Food Type consumed

in 1 day (24 hours)

Comments

Pre-Crisis Post-Crisis

(Now)

Cereals

Although sorghum is still consumed now, the quantity and

frequency has been greatly reduced. Pre-crisis, families

would consume maize, millet and sometimes wheat.

Roots and Tubers

In normal years, Irish potatoes and sweet potatoes would be

accessed from the markets or own production,

Pulses, Legumes and

Nuts

Currently families are consuming lentils, only after WFP

distributions.

Vegetables (kudhura,

dhodho, simusimu)

Currently families are gathering wild vegetables, mostly

kudhura, from the forest, whereas during normal years

tomatoes, simusimu, onions are part of their diets.

Fruits

Meat / Poultry/Offal

Before crisis it was eaten around once a week and now it is

eaten more rarely.

Eggs

Fish

In normal periods, families either would go fishing or buy

from the market. Frequency and quantity had reduced post-

conflict.

Milk and milk products

Host communities now consume milk less frequently. IDPs

do not have animals and rarely do they consume milk.

Oil / fat

Sugar

Wild fruits (including

water lilies)

Seven FGDs confirmed that they never consumed water

lilies before the crisis.

Total HDDS Score 12 5

A look at the table above indicates that dietary diversity has deteriorated significantly since the crisis. IDP

consumption of cereals, roots and tubers, pulses, legumes & nuts, fruits, vegetables, meat & poultry,

eggs, fish, milk, oils, fats and sugar having been most affected. Host community food consumption

represents a similar reduction in HDDS.

i. Coping Mechanisms

The main shocks households are currently facing include limited supply and high cost of food, limited

access to income-earning opportunities, and a decrease in livestock prices (including terms of trade)

7 Famine Early Warning Systems Network (http://www.fews.net) May 2014 to September 2014:- http://www.fews.net/%C3%A1frica-del-este/food-security-outlook/sun-2014-05-25-tue-2014-09-30 8 Famine Early Warning Systems Network (http://www.fews.net) May 2014 to September 2014: http://www.fews.net/%C3%A1frica-del-este/food-security-outlook/sun-2014-05-25-tue-2014-09-30

Page 11: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

against rising food prices in the market. According to all FGDs currently families are resorting to the

following coping mechanisms:

- limiting the portion and/or size of meals consumed;

- missing meals, six of nine FGDs revealed that some families are going a full day without

eating;

- borrowing from neighbors and;

- selling more animals than usual.

D. Markets

In normal periods traders from Ganyliel purchase goods from Juba, Bor and Malakal. The market maps in

Figures 2 and 3 detail the supply routes for Ganyliel both pre- and post-crisis. These locations are

predominantly occupied by Dinka and are currently controlled by government forces. Confirmation by five

out of the seven traders interviewed, and some of the KIs, showed that Juba and Bor supplied nearly 70%

and 20% of commodities, respectively. The Nile river was utilized as an access route because of the poor

road network and other supply chain barriers to trade in Ganyliel. Since the crisis started, it is insecure for

the Nuer traders to do business in government-controlled areas, which has completely stopped trade with

the afore-mentioned areas, which previously served as a primary source for supplies for traders in

Ganyliel..

Duk market, although predominantly Dinka, has good relations with traders in Ganyliel, and has emerged

as a new supply market. Fishermen have started transporting goods, especially sorghum, from Duk using

traditional canoes. Traders hire a single canoe, which has the capacity to carry a maximum of fifteen 50kg

bags of sorghum from the fishermen. According to four of the interviewed traders, on average it usually

takes about two weeks to travel from Ganyliel to Duk and back for re-stocking. Table 6, below, presents

data collected and analyzed from all the traders to show the costs that are incurred in purchasing at least

ten bags of sorghum from Duk.

Table 6: Costs of transporting 10 bags of sorghum from Duk Supply Market to Ganyliel9

More than three quarters of the FGDs indicated that from June of this year until the next harvest in

September, families will have to depend on the markets for food. Analyzed data reflected that purchases

tend to peak between May and September, the lean season. The current crisis in the whole of Unity State

has worsened access to supply markets as trade routes are now insecure, negatively impacting food

availability in Ganyliel. The Greater Ganyliel market has started showing signs of reviving. However, very

few goods are getting into the markets as traders are facing transport challenges. In Pachak, Pachar,

Pachienjok, and Payinjar, markets are completely non-functional, forcing consumers to depend solely on

Greater Ganyliel market. Consequently, the main commodity that remains available, sorghum is in high

demand. However most families are not able to purchase enough to feed their families because prices

9 USD 1= SSP 3.7

# Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost SSP

Total Cost SSP

1 Hiring Canoe (Tayar to Duk) round-trip 1 700 700

2 Bag of Sorghum 50 kg 10 450 4,500

3 Port Fees Fees n/a 100 100

4 Hiring Canoe (Tayar to Ganyliel) 50kg 10 25 250

5 Head Porters n/a 10 10 100

Total 5,650

Page 12: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

are now four times higher than they were at the beginning of the crisis in December 2013. A 50kg bag of

sorghum, which normally costs SSP 150, is now selling for SSP 560. The limited supply and variety of

food items available at reasonable prices, coupled with low purchasing power, are major obstacles to

market access by people, according to the communities assessed.

All FGDs and KIs interviewed confirmed that the terms of trade have also changed, putting desperate

livestock sellers at a great disadvantage. While livestock keepers are willing to sell their animals, the

prices of livestock have been greatly reduced as demand for livestock is low in the market. A cow that

may have sold for SSP 1,200 before the crisis is now selling at just SSP 450 on the market. This amount

is not even enough to purchase a bag of sorghum sufficient to feed a family of five people for one week.

Therefore, efforts by the humanitarian community to re-stabilize markets in Ganyliel are crucial to avoid

further deterioration in food insecurity status in this location. Table 7, below, gives details of the cost of

essential food items accessible and available in the Ganyliel market at the time of the assessment.

Table 7: Commodity prices in Ganyliel Markets

# Commodity Unit Price Pre-Crisis (SSP)

Current Price (SSP)

1 Sorghum 50Kg 150 560

2 Soap Bar 8 10

3 Goat Head 150 250

4 Cattle Head 1200 450

5 Chicken Live 10 30

6 Meat ( beef) 1 kg 15 25

7 Sugar 50kg 400 1250

8 Sugar 3.5 kg 20 50

9 Salt 100g 5 35

10 Cooking Oil (Oki) 20L 300 800

11 Cooking Oil (Oki) 200ml 2 5

12 Lintels 50kg 500 700

13 Bundle of firewood Bundle 1 1

14 Fresh Fish Small 10 15

15 Fresh Fish Medium 35 50

16 Fresh Fish Big 15 20

17 Fish (Dried) Strip 15 25

18 Aradep (wild fruit) Potion 1 2

According to five of the seven interviewed traders, the majority of traders would be able to restock

essential food and non-food items within 14 days. Most traders report having the capacity to double or

triple their stock of essential food items if there was reliable transport to purchase goods from the supply

market in Duk. Based on the information gathered, it can be concluded that local markets and shops do

not have the capacity to respond if cash transfers are given to affected households to buy essential food

items. Supply of commodities is still limited and there is still an absence of supply on variety of goods

because of limited transportation routes. Therefore, any support given to consumers should include a

parallel intervention that supports traders to increase their supply in order to meet expected increases in

demand. This would likely require the provision of reliable transport services to enable traders to re-stock.

Page 13: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

RECOMMENDATIONS

To address the existing gaps in current needs it is recommended that humanitarian actors implement a two-

phased approach to FSL programming. Phase I should focus on improving communities’ immediate access to

food. A parallel long-term recovery and stabilization program can be implemented to increase communities’

resilience to food and livelihoods situations. Alternatively, the recovery and development activities can be

implemented as a phase II program. Effective interventions could include the following activities:

a. Immediate/Short-Term Program: Improve Communities’ Access to Food

i. Support or revive local markets to benefit IDP and host communities in Ganyliel and the surrounding

areas. The humanitarian community should consider working with local traders, local officials and

other stakeholders to revive the supply chain and flow of goods into Ganyliel markets. Traders have

reported having the financial resources to increase their current stocks, transporting goods into

Ganyliel poses a challenge. The conflict has disrupted the usual supply routes for Ganyliel and,

because this area has poor road transport connections, the Nile river is now the only available option

used to transport goods and services from new supply markets. However, lack of proper water

transport facilities makes this new route difficult for the traders to fully stock their shops. Traders,

therefore, need assistance with transporting commodities into Ganyliel in order to meet demand. One

possible intervention would be providing access to a motorized boat with increased cargo capacity,

possibly in collaboration with fishermen, who are currently transporting traders and goods in their

canoes.. A motorised boat would both reduce the length of time per trip, and would increase the

amount of cargo per trip. This should increase the supply and diversity of goods in Ganyliel markets,

which should result in lower prices for basic commodities, thereby increasing communities’ access to

food.

ii. Stimulate demand for goods and services by providing cash grants and cash for work

opportunities to targeted groups of people within the community. Although a blanket food distribution

exercise is vital in Ganyliel at this stage, vulnerable groups of people in the community are bearing the

heaviest weight of this crisis. According to all FGDs, specific groups such as female-headed families,

the elderly, disabled-headed families, pregnant and lactating women, and child-headed families are

particularly vulnerable to food insecurity. Therefore, their access to the revived market for basic food

needs should be aided through a direct cash transfer grant. This way, their purchasing power will be

increased in order to access food and basic commodities in the market. Cash grants would increase

the market access of these vulnerable groups, thereby improving their ability to meet their food needs,

while simultaneously supporting reviving markets. Cash for work activities should specifically target

young people to help ensure they have positive opportunities so that they are less likely to join armed

groups. Participants in cash for work programs could be engaged in infrastructural work to create or

rehabilitate assets that will benefit the wider community.

iii. Provide immediate access to food by the affected communities through a blanket food

distribution program at least to the next harvest season whilst taking precautionary measures to avoid

doing harm to market revival responses. Analysis of data collected revealed that the wider community

in Ganyliel is food insecure; therefore a blanket food distribution should be considered. Since access

to Ganyliel by road is almost impossible humanitarian actors can opt to airlifting of food the same way

IRC and Medair are doing for medical and veterinary supplies or replicate and upscale WFP’s efforts in

carrying out air drops. However, caution should be exercised in implementing this activity since it may

disrupt the market which has started showing signs of life.

Page 14: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

b. Long-term Programming: Building Resilience by Supporting Food Production and Livelihoods Promotion

Activities

Humanitarian players can implement a recovery and stabilization program that produces long-lasting results.

Activities under this component can be designed to build communities’ capacity to produce their own food and

be resilient and self-sustainable. Below are activities that can be implemented to achieve this goal.

i. Procure and distribute vegetable and maize seeds to the affected communities who have access to

arable land for them to produce their own food and potentially surplus for the market. Many IDP and

host community members have access to land, but do not have seeds to plant or tools with which to

cultivate the land. The seeds provided should include numerous kinds of vegetable seeds to enhance

the variety of vegetables consumed at household level. While vegetables can be cultivated any time

during the year utilizing swamps during the dry season, cereals such as maize and millet can only be

planted by or before the month of August since they rely on rainfall. In order to promote good

horticultural and farming practices that utilize low-cost farming methods while realising high yields,

demonstration plots can be established at public institutions such as health and nutrition stabilization

centers. The products from these plots can be used to serve community members accessing the

centers. Lead farmers can be identified and trained to develop, manage and run similar demonstration

plots and nutrition gardens in the community.

ii. Design livestock support programs meant to assist livestock keepers to maintain existing

animal heads and to re-start livestock keeping activities. Animal health activities which support

livestock keepers, especially the host communities should continue. There is room to scale up

interventions from focusing on animal vaccines to include activities like de-worming and also to build

capacity of communities to run animal health campaigns through training of Community animal health

workers. A few IDP families who registered that they will permanently stay in Ganyliel may need a re-

stocking program. Shoats, which are easily disposable either through barter or sale in the market for

food and income, could be distributed to such people. This would assist such families whose livelihood

in original places was mainly based on raising livestock to recover from the crisis.

iii. Assist fishermen and fishermen groups to strengthen or re-start their livelihoods by providing

fishing tools such as; hooks, twines, spools and nets. Fishing supplements family diets and provides

income for individuals who practice it. This should be targeted at fishing groups which are already

existing, to host communities and to those IDPs whose previous livelihood was mainly dependant on

fishing .Associated training on fishing and preservation techniques can be considered as follow up

activities

iv. Advocate for peace and security and lobby on behalf of the affected communities for

authorities to publicly announce the willingness to implement the Addis Agreement (which has

promises for a cease-fire and to end war in South Sudan). This assurance from conflicting parties will

give enough security for the traders to move freely to bring goods from traditional supply routes and

from the nearby markets.

Page 15: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

The market environment: institutions, rules, norms & trends

The market chain: market actors & their linkages

Key infrastructure, inputs and market-support services

Juba

Tayar Port (Transit Point)

Greater Ganyliel Communities

Market-system Map: - Basic Commodities

Security

Reliable Transport!

Canoes

Boats (from Juba)

Road!

Ganyliel Traders N= 141

Bor County– (Jonglei State) V= 20 %

WFP (Prepositioning Facilities in Payinjar)

Good tribal relations

Shambek Port (Lake Sate) V=5%

Payinjar Traders N= 42

Malakal and Bentiu Markets (Upper Nile & Unity States)

Leer (Adok Port-Unity) V=5%

V=70%

Key V= Volume P= Price N= Number != Critical Situation

Livestock, Agric Products

Criminal Activity!

Figure 2: Pre-Crisis Market Supply Chain for Ganyliel

Page 16: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

The market environment: institutions, rules, norms & trends

The market chain: market actors & their linkages

Key infrastructure, inputs and market-support services

Juba

Tayar Market (Transit Point) 150 Bags-sorghum /week

Greater Ganyliel & IDP Communities (Target Group)

Market-system Map: Basic Commodities

Head Porters (women)

Canoes! Boats (from Juba)!

Fishermen (Middlemen)

Ganyliel N= 30

Panyijiar Traders N= 0!

Bor County– (Jonglei State) WFP

(Not Reliable-less frequent)

Insecurity !

Leer (Adok Port-Unity)

Shambek Port (Lake Sate)

Duk County (Jonglei State- Dinka Bor)

Key N = Number V = Volume ! = Critical issue 100% = Total Reliance = Partial disruption = Complete disruption

Malakal and Bentiu Markets (Upper Nile & Unity States)

Criminal Activity!

Livestock, Agric Products

V=100%

Good Tribal Relations- Duk (Dinka) & Ganyliel (Nuer)

Port Fees!

V=30%

V=60%

V= 3%

V= 5%

Low Purchasing power!

Skewed terms of trade!

Figure 3: Post-Crisis Market Supply Chain for Ganyliel

Page 17: South sudan food secuirty and livelihoods  report

From Harm To Home | Rescue.org

Secondary Data Sources

1. Black et al. Maternal and Child Undernutrition 1: “Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional

exposures and health consequences.” The Lancet, Volume 371, Issue 9608, Pages 243 - 260, 19 January

2008,

2. FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to South Sudan 20 February 2014:

http://www.wfp.org/foodsecurity/reports/CFSAM

3. Interim Report on Human Rights Crisis in South Sudan (February 2014 )

http://unmiss.unmissions.org/Portals/unmiss/Documents/PR/Reports/HRD%20Interim%20Report%20on%20Crisis%20201

4-02-21.pdf,

4. Loaded Guns and Empty Stomach (A report on Food Security by Care International):-

reliefweb.int/report/.../loaded-guns-and-empty-stomachs-fixing-food...

5. IRC Nutritional Anthropometry and Mortality Surveys, Preliminary Report, Panyijiar County; Unity state

Republic of South Sudan, April 2014