south sudaniomsouthsudan.org/tracking/sites/default/publicfiles/documents/iom... · violence in...

South Sudan Village Assessment Survey Report

2013

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION (IOM)

Village Assessment Survey Report (2013)

AcknowledgmentsIOM is grateful to all of the partners that contributed to this new cycle of Village Assessment Surveys. The first stakeholder consultation took place in December 2011, with a workshop aiming to validate assessment tools and identify ways to maximize the added value of the field exercise. The following organizations contributed to this exercise: the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS); the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC); the United Nations Development Programme Crisis and Recovery Mapping and Analysis project (UNDP-CRMA); the United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office, Recovery Reintegration and Peace-Building Unit (RCSO-RRP); the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); and the World Food Programme (WFP). Data gathering was initiated in February 2012, gradually expanding to reach all of the 30 selected counties. The last counties to be assessed were in Lakes State in September 2012. Data entry took several months, while data analysis, mapping and writing of the report took an additional five months.

The RRC, IOM’s key government counterpart in the implementation of activities related to tracking and monitoring of displaced populations, provided extensive support to the initiative. The RRC’s involvement included the mobilization of 228 enumerators, whose knowledge of South Sudan’s territory, location of public services facilities, and close relationships with community leaders allowed the teams to access bomas in even the most remote areas. With their support and resourcefulness, IOM was able to garner exceptional levels of both quantitative and qualitative data.

Payam administrators were very supportive throughout the process, including in completing the “Payam Authority Questionnaires”. Health and education administrative authorities also made themselves available to provide the corresponding data, highlighting challenges to fulfilling their mandate. IOM is grateful to all boma representatives who participated in this survey.

Special thanks go to Forcier Consulting for analyzing the survey data and preparing this report, in coordination with IOM.

Finally, IOM extends its gratitude to the European Commission Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO) and the United States Agency for International Development/Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA) for their generous support to make this survey possible.


ForewordAs South Sudan nears the second anniversary of its independence, the world’s newest state continues to face numerous challenges, with a fragile humanitarian situation and socio-economic difficulties brought about by the suspension of the country’s oil production in early 2012. It is within this context that millions of South Sudanese have returned to their homeland, mainly from Sudan. Since the inception of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 an estimated 2.5 million South Sudanese have returned, settling across all ten states that make up the Republic of South Sudan. This is the equivalent of approximately 23% of the country’s estimated population (based on estimates as of 2012). The influx continues to test the country’s absorption capacity and host communities’ ability to share limited basic services, livelihood opportunities and economic resources.

Decades of civil war and the absence of structural investment have resulted in major gaps in infrastructure and service delivery across the country. This situation has been further compounded in recent years by recurring humanitarian crises that have led to additional internal displacement and a large influx of refugees fleeing violence in Sudan’s Blue Nile and South Kordofan states.

As a result, returnees continue to face tremendous difficulties with their integration into communities they have often been separated from for several generations. Barriers to sustainable (re)integration include obstacles in accessing land, scarce resources such as water, food, as well as limited basic services such as education and healthcare.

South Sudan has long been marked by a general lack of reliable data that may inform the development of integration and socio-economic improvement strategies. In order to identify major gaps in access to basic services and infrastructure, the international community has relied on Village Assessment Surveys (VAS). The process was launched by IOM in 2007 with a particular focus on the Greater Bahr el Ghazal region, the area where the greatest numbers of returnees have settled. The VAS survey seeks to gather baseline data across key sectors, namely access to healthcare, education, protection, livelihoods, and water and sanitation.

This report is the result of a new VAS round initiated in 2012 on an unprecedented scale, covering 30 of the country’s 78 counties through a detailed analysis of sectors based on surveys of local administrations, public services and local community representatives. In all, the report offers information on 197 payams, 871 bomas, 6,270 villages, 468 health facilities and 1,277 education facilities.

This comprehensive narrative report provides a general overview of the VAS findings, in conjunction with 30 county profiles and atlases that offer more detailed information at the county, payam and boma levels. Together, these documents aim to make baseline information available to a wide spectrum of humanitarian and development partners. We hope this will offer useful insight on the many challenges returnees face in their efforts to settle into local communities and that this information will be used to jointly work towards identifying durable solutions to the long-lasting consequences of large-scale displacement in a manner that is beneficial to the South Sudanese society as a whole.

Vincent HouverChief of Mission

Village Assessment Survey Report (2013) | i

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ................................................................................................................................. vii

1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................11.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 11.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 21.2.1 VAS Questionnaires .................................................................................................................................. 21.2.2 County Selection ....................................................................................................................................... 31.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 61.4 Interpretation .............................................................................................................................................. 8

2. Findings .................................................................................................................................................92.1 Basic Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 92.1.2 Transport Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 102.2 Land............. .............................................................................................................................................. 112.2.1 Land Allocation ....................................................................................................................................... 122.2.2 Ownership, Settlement types and Shelter .............................................................................................. 142.3 Civil Society Groups ................................................................................................................................... 162.4 Livelihoods ................................................................................................................................................. 172.4.1 Farming ................................................................................................................................................... 172.4.2 Livestock ................................................................................................................................................. 242.4.3 Fishing .................................................................................................................................................... 362.5 Food Security& Coping Mechanisms ......................................................................................................... 382.5.1 Food Security .......................................................................................................................................... 382.5.2 Coping Mechanisms ............................................................................................................................... 412.6 Other Means and Sources of Income ........................................................................................................ 42

3. Water, Sanitation & Hygiene ................................................................................................................433.1 Seasonal Migration and Water .................................................................................................................. 463.2 Local Conflict over Water .......................................................................................................................... 493.3 Sanitation .................................................................................................................................................. 50

4. Health .................................................................................................................................................524.1 Health Care Services .................................................................................................................................. 554.1.1 Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................ 554.1.2 Disease ................................................................................................................................................... 594.2 Support..... ................................................................................................................................................. 604.3 Immunizations ........................................................................................................................................... 634.4 Health Education ....................................................................................................................................... 644.5 Sanitation .................................................................................................................................................. 65

5. Education ............................................................................................................................................665.1 System..... .................................................................................................................................................. 665.2 Enrollment and Dropout Rate ................................................................................................................... 705.3 School Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................. 725.4 Urgent Needs ............................................................................................................................................ 745.5 Support.... .................................................................................................................................................. 75

ii | Village Assessment Survey Report (2013)

6. Security ...............................................................................................................................................776.1 Conflict........ .............................................................................................................................................. 786.2 Sexual and Gender-Based Violence ........................................................................................................... 816.3 Rule of Law Institutions ............................................................................................................................ 866.4 Unaccompanied, Missing, and Separated Children ................................................................................... 90

7. Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................95

8. Recommendations ...............................................................................................................................98

Annex I: Map of the VAS Counties Assessed by Month

Annex II: Supplementary List of Tables

Annex III: Village Assessment Survey Tools

List of figuresFigure 1: Average Time Spent Travelling by Foot to Nearest Major Market in Hours ..................................... 11Figure 2: Percentage of Land Ownership by the County Classification and Settlement Type ......................... 14Figure 3: Percentage of Land Ownership by the County Classification and Settlement Type ......................... 15Figure 4: Types of Shelter by County Classification ......................................................................................... 15Figure 5: Aggregated Production of Crops by Type ......................................................................................... 17Figure 6: Needs of Farmers Identified by Bomas Surveyed ............................................................................. 21Figure 7: Types of Support Available for Farmers ............................................................................................ 23Figure 8: Actors Supporting Farming Programmes.......................................................................................... 24Figure 9: Fees Required to Access Water ........................................................................................................ 45

List of tablesTable 1: Objectives of VAS Survey by Sector ..................................................................................................... 2Table 2: VAS Questionnaire Type by Sector ...................................................................................................... 3Table 3: Characteristics of Counties Selected for VAS ....................................................................................... 5Table 4: Classification System for Priority Counties included in 2013 VAS Report ............................................ 6Table 5: Classification of the Priority Counties by the Numbers of Returnees .................................................. 7Table 6: Presence of Facilities in Bomas by Facility Type ................................................................................... 9Table 7: Satisfaction with Facilities Where Present by Type of Facility ........................................................... 10Table 8: Presence of Roads, Bridges and Public Transport in Bomas by Infrastructure Type .......................... 10Table 9: Satisfaction with Roads, Bridges and Public Transport Where Present by Infrastructure Type ......... 11Table 10: Reporting Land Allocation to Returnees by Community Members by County ................................ 12Table 11: Total Number of Bomas Reporting Allocating Land by County Classification .................................. 13Table 12: Land Types by County Classification ................................................................................................ 14Table 13: Percentages of Bomas with Civil Society Groups by Type of Group ................................................. 16Table 14: Problems Affecting Crop Production ................................................................................................ 18Table 15: Problems Affecting Food Crops by State by Problem Type .............................................................. 18Table 16: Specific Causes of Crop Damage by Type ......................................................................................... 19Table 17: Specific Natural Hazards Affecting Crop Production by Type ........................................................... 19Table 18: Natural Hazards Affecting Crop Production by State and Type ........................................................ 19

Village Assessment Survey Report (2013) | iii

Table 19: Existence of Crop Disease by County Classification ......................................................................... 20Table 20: Specific causes for market inaccessibility by State and Type ........................................................... 21Table 21: Sources of Water for Farming .......................................................................................................... 22Table 22: Seed Sources for Crop Production ................................................................................................... 22Table 23: Support Providers to Communal Farming by Source Types ............................................................. 23Table 24: Number of Bomas with Livestock Ownership by County Classification ........................................... 25Table 25: Number of Bomas which Engage in Livestock Sale by County Classification ................................... 25Table 26: Number of Bomas Engaging in the Sale of Livestock Products by County Classification ................ 25Table 27: Presence of Livestock Markets by County Classification .................................................................. 27Table 28: Problems Affecting Livestock Owners by County Classification ....................................................... 28Table 29: Correlation Matrix of Problems Affecting Livestock Herders ........................................................... 28Table 30: Grazing Land as Problem Affecting Livestock Herders by County .................................................... 29Table 31: Diseases as a Problem Affecting Livestock Herders by County ........................................................ 30Table 32: Water as a Problem Affecting Livestock Herders by County ............................................................ 32Table 33: Conflict as a Problem Affecting Livestock Herders by County .......................................................... 33Table 34: Droughts and Floods as Problems Affecting Livestock Herders by County ...................................... 34Table 35: Support for Livestock Owners by Type............................................................................................. 35Table 36: Providers of Veterinary Support by State ........................................................................................ 35Table 37: Existence of Fisheries by County Classification ................................................................................ 36Table 38: Sale of Fish Products by County Classification ................................................................................. 36Table 39: Problems Affecting Fisherman by County Classification .................................................................. 36Table 40: Reasons for Lack of Inputs into Fisheries Production by County Classification ............................... 37Table 41: Support Available to Fishermen by Type ......................................................................................... 37Table 42: Providers of Fishing Gear by Type .................................................................................................... 38Table 43: Reported Instances of Food Security Concerns by County .............................................................. 39Table 44: Reported Cases of Hunger by County .............................................................................................. 40Table 45: Coping Strategies Employed in Response to Food Scarcity by Type ................................................ 41Table 46: Food Types Available by Type and Season ....................................................................................... 41Table 47: Other Means of Income by Type ..................................................................................................... 42Table 48: Water Source by County Classification ............................................................................................ 43Table 49: Universal Access to Water Sources Within Community by County.................................................. 44Table 50: Water Accessibility by Water Source and Degree ............................................................................ 45Table 51: Reasons for Water Accessibility ....................................................................................................... 45Table 52: Seasonal Migration by County ......................................................................................................... 46Table 53: Reasons for Choosing Seasonal Migratory Route for Water Type ................................................... 47Table 54: Members Engaging in Seasonal Migration by Type ......................................................................... 47Table 55: Existence of Conflict on Migratory Route due to Competition for Water by County ....................... 48Table 56: Sources of Water on Migratory Route by Type ............................................................................... 49Table 57: Conflict within the Boma Due to Water ........................................................................................... 49Table 58: Conflict over Water within Bomas by State ..................................................................................... 50Table 59: Sanitation and Hygiene Education in Previous 2 Years and Use of Latrines ..................................... 50Table 60: Latrine Types Utilized by County Classification ................................................................................ 51Table 61: Sanitation and Hygiene Education Topics Covered in Awareness Raising Activities by Topic .......... 51Table 62: Numbers and Types of Health Facilities by County .......................................................................... 53Table 63: Health Facility Structures by Facility Type........................................................................................ 54Table 64: Health Facility Services Offered by Facility Type .............................................................................. 54

iv | Village Assessment Survey Report (2013)

Table 65: Satisfaction Level of Health Facilities in Bomas by County Classification ........................................ 54Table 66: Mean Average Intake (2009-2011) as reported by Health Facility Type and County ....................... 55Table 67: Number of Health Facilities by County Classification ...................................................................... 56Table 68: Presence of Health Facility in Bomas by County Classification ........................................................ 56Table 69: Mean Average Distance to Closest Health Facility in Bomas without a Facility ............................... 56Table 70: Health Services Sought in Bomas without Health Facilities by Type ................................................ 57Table 71: Health Facility Staff Available by Type of Facility ............................................................................. 57Table 72: Satisfaction with Health Facility by County Classification ................................................................ 58Table 73: Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Health Facility ............................................................................... 58Table 74: Persons Attend Health Facility When Sick by County Classification ................................................. 58Table 75: Reported factors influencing death by age group ............................................................................ 59Table 76: Presence of Diseases in Boma as Reported by Health Facilities ...................................................... 59Table 77: Health Facilities with Accessible and Available Epidemiological Data ............................................. 60Table 78: Sources of Primary Health Care Supplies by Source and Facility Type ............................................. 60Table 79: Sources of Structural and Maintenance Support by Source and Facility Type ................................. 61Table 80: Sources of Staff Salaries for Health Facilities by Source and Facility Type ....................................... 61Table 81: Sources of Furniture for Health Facilities by Source and Facility Type ............................................. 62Table 82: Sources of Laboratory Equipment for Health Facilities by Source and Facility Type ........................ 62Table 83: Health Facilities Providing Routine Immunization for Children by Facility Type .............................. 63Table 84: Reported Level of Expanded Programs for Immunization (EPI) Coverage Provided to Children by Type .............................................................................................................................................. 63Table 85: Immunization Campaigns in Catchment Areas Where Routine Immunization is not Conducted by Facility Type ..................................................................................................................................................... 64Table 86: Health Facilities Conducting Health Education Sessions in Bomas by Facility Type ......................... 64Table 87: Health Education Sessions Conducted in the Last Year by Topic ..................................................... 64Table 88: Methods of Clinical Waste Disposal by Health Facility Type ............................................................ 65Table 89: Presence of Schools by County ........................................................................................................ 68Table 90: School Curriculums by County Classification ................................................................................... 69Table 91: Languages of Instruction in Schools ................................................................................................. 69Table 92: Mean Averages of Perceived Attendance in School by Gender and County Classification .............. 70Table 93: Ratio of Dropouts to Enrollment by County Classification ............................................................... 70Table 94: Reasons for Dropout of School ........................................................................................................ 71Table 95: Activities that Conflict with the School Calendar by State ............................................................... 71Table 96: School Structures by Type and County Classification ...................................................................... 72Table 97: Status of Water Source and Availability in Schools by County Classification ................................... 73Table 98: Availability and Access to Latrines in Schools by Type and County Classification ............................ 73Table 99: Urgent Needs for Schools ................................................................................................................ 74Table 100: Support Providers of Books and Stationary ................................................................................... 75Table 101: Support Providers of School Structural Maintenance .................................................................... 75Table 102: Support Providers of Teacher Salaries ........................................................................................... 76Table 103: External Violations, Threats, and Risks by Type and County Classification .................................... 77Table 104: Local Violations, Threats, and Risks by County Classification ........................................................ 78Table 105: Existence of External conflict as a Violation, Threat or Risk by County Classification.................... 79Table 106: Existence of Local Conflict as a Threat, Violation or Risk by County Classification ........................ 80Table 107: Responses to Local Conflict by Type and County Classification ..................................................... 81Table 108: Bomas Reporting that Women Feel Insecure Outside their Homes by County ............................. 82

Village Assessment Survey Report (2013) | v

Table 109: Bomas Reporting Women Feel Insecure Outside of Home by State.............................................. 83Table 110: Responses to Perceived Violence against Women &Girl Children by County Classification .......... 83Table 111: Cases of Alleged Crimes Referred to Police by Type and County Classification ............................. 84Table 112: Recorded Instances of Alleged Violence Related to Accessing Water Points by Type and County Classification .................................................................................................................................................... 84Table 113: Water Points Considered Safe Distance for Women and Children by County Classification .......... 85Table 114: Presence of Traditional Boma Court by County ............................................................................. 86Table 115: Existence of an Accessible Judicial Court by County ...................................................................... 88Table 116: Presence of Police Station by County ............................................................................................ 89Table 117: Issues Resolved in Boma Courts by Type and County Classification ............................................. 90Table 118: Reported Presence of Separated Children by County .................................................................... 91Table 119: Reported Presence of Unaccompanied Children by County .......................................................... 92Table 120: Reported Presence of Missing Children by County ........................................................................ 93Table 121: Support Network for Separated and Unaccompanied Children by County Classification ............. 94Table 122: Unaccompanied and Separated Children Who Attend School by County Classification ................ 94

vi | Village Assessment Survey Report (2013)

Acronyms

BPHS Basic Package of Health ServicesCPA Comprehensive Peace AgreementFDG Focus Group DiscussionGBV Gender-Based ViolenceGDP Gross Domestic ProductGoNU Government of National UnityGRSS Government of the Republic of South SudanICMPD International Centre for Migration Policy DevelopmentIDP Internally Displaced PersonIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIGAD Intergovernmental Authority on DevelopmentILO International Labour OrganizationIMF International Monetary FundIOM International Organization for MigrationKII Key Informant InterviewMoA Ministry of AgricultureMoH Ministry of HealthNBS National Bureau of StatisticsNGO Non Governmental OrganizationNLMS National Labour Market SurveyPTA Parent Teacher AssociationRRC Relief and Rehabilitation CommissionSPLM/A Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/ArmySSI Semi-Structured InterviewSSNPS South Sudan National Police ServiceSSP South Sudanese PoundsUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees VAS Village Assessment SurveyWB World Bank

State Abbreviations

CEQ Central Equatoria WEQ Western Equatoria EEQ Eastern Equatoria LAK Lakes NBEG Northern Bahr el Ghazal WBEG Western Bahr el Ghazal WAR Warrap UNI Unity UNS Upper Nile JNG Jonglei

Village Assessment Survey Report (2013) | vii

Executive SummaryThe Village Assessment Survey (VAS) is a comprehensive data source for South Sudan that provides granular data from 30 priority counties with the aim of informing reintegration assistance around basic services and infrastructure, livelihoods, land and shelter, WASH, education, health, and protection.

After consultations with the Government of South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC), UN agencies, and state-level partners, 30 priority counties were identified for the assessment. These were comprised of 197 payams, 871 bomas, 468 health facilities, and 1,277 primary schools. There was a particular emphasis on assessing payams outside state capitals, where comparatively fewer comprehensive assessments have been carried out. IOM conducted the VAS in priority counties that represent an estimated 72% of the returnee population.

The VAS is composed of four integrated questionnaires: the Boma Questionnaire places bomas as the main unit of reference, the Health and Education Technical Questionnaires place health facilities and primary schools as the units of reference, and the Payam Authority Questionnaire.

The questionnaires targeted various levels of administrative structures and public services. The Boma Questionnaires were submitted to selected target groups within the bomas who discussed the topics in a group context producing a multiparty response. The boma administrator participated along with a representative of the returnee community, in addition to female and youth representatives. Payam Authority Questionnaires were conducted with senior payam officials.

The technical Health and Education Technical Questionnaires reviewed the capacity of public services provided within the bomas. The health and education questionnaires were submitted to the respective administrative authorities of health and educational facilities. These research instruments supply triangulated sources of information, as they are independent verifications of information collected at the boma and payam level.

The analysis utilizing the main questionnaire demonstrates the perceptions of the administrators and representatives of the bomas in the priority counties surveyed—not the returnee population per se. Returnee representatives further contributed to the surveys and reference is made to the situation of returned persons where relevant.

Where applicable, the VAS is aggregated at the state level to explain geographical variations in key indicators, although it is not strictly representative at the state level. Further, three categories of the priority counties were created for the data analysis phase: counties of high return, counties of medium return, and counties of low return, with ten counties in each classification.

This general overview of the data is a supplement to the more detailed analysis provided in the annexed county profiles and GIS analyses included in the overall report portfolio.

The following findings are summarized from the detailed analysis of this report.

Basic Services and InfrastructureThere is a strong perception of lack of basic services. Where services do exist, respondents indicated dissatisfaction with those services.

• 50.7% (n=412) of the bomas surveyed reported having some measure of road access.• 26.1 % (n=103) of those bomas that possess roads are satisfied with the current state of the roads.• 84.0% (n=715) of the surveyed bomas reported an absence of available transport.

viii | Village Assessment Survey Report (2013)

• 81.0% (n=695) of reporting bomas have access to water points• 87.0 % (n =572) reported dissatisfaction with their water services.• A substantial majority (74.7 % - n=647) of counties of high return reported having access to a local

school, but of these, only 17.0 % (n=108) of the bomas surveyed are satisfied with their school facilities.

LandLand allocation to returnees is perceived as being very limited, and there are little construction materials available for local builders. Much land that is available is only for customary tenure.

• 10.8% (n=92) of bomas allocate land to returnees.• 81.0% of bomas reported being required to walk between 1 to 4 hours searching for construction

materials in the nearby forests, with 19.9% of bomas reporting the use of materials acquired in the local market.

• On average and across counties of all return levels, 70.0% (n=782) of respondents live in permanent settlements, with tukuls being the primary housing type (84.0%).

• Land ownership is primarily ancestral; low return counties have the most ancestral land at 52.3%. Communal ownership is the second most significant ownership type.

Civil Society GroupsThere is a very high prevalence (>90%) of civil society organizations across the surveyed bomas. The widespread established nature of civil society is a strong foundation of community involvement with external actors. Despite the strong presence of civil society groups and high participation of women, the effects of civil society engagement on local communities are yet to be determined.

LivelihoodsLivelihoods based on a number of land-based activities but face a range of production barriers. Hunger shocks are common and the resultant coping mechanisms centre on lowered food intake or alternative foraging activities.

• Subsistence farming is the dominant livelihood activity at 99.2% (n=871). In addition 95.0% (n=813) of surveyed households own livestock, and 53.9% of bomas in return counties are engaged in fishing. Unspecified income generating activities make up 62.0% (n=640) of alternative income sources.

• Disease, natural hazards, market accessibility, and lack of inputs, are among the main barriers to productivity and are relevant across sectors. Natural hazards as the greatest barrier to agricultural productivity (25.9%, n=749), animal disease for livestock productivity (26.4%, n=213), and lack of inputs for fishing productivity (33.9%, n=275).

• Credit support to farmers is generally lacking, although there appear to be relatively high levels of support from the private sector, NGOs and UN agencies, government, and communal organizations.

HealthThere is a strong perception of limited access to health care and dissatisfaction with the existing facilities. There are further requests for additional support from health facilities, more training, and funding. The following findings are from the Health Technical Questionnaire.

• 69.4% of bomas in high return counties do not possess a health facility and 54.5% (n=464) of the overall bomas surveyed do not possess a health facility of any type. Of those that do possess health facilities, the majority of bomas consider their facilities to be unsatisfactory (81.1%, n=376).

• Only 0.5% (n=4) of reporting PHCUs have a resident doctor. Medical assistants at PHCUs are also largely absent with only 4.2% (n=35) reporting one in-house.

• Although the majority of health care facilities are located in permanent structures, they rarely possess maternity wards or emergency rooms.

Village Assessment Survey Report (2013) | ix

EducationThere is an acute deficit of trained teachers in the counties surveyed and this is perceived as the most urgent education need across counties. The following findings are from the Education Technical Questionnaire.

• Primary schools are reportedly present in 74.8% (n=647) of counties but of these, only 23.5% (292 are able to provide the full eight-year primary cycle).

• Infrastructure is broadly lacking: only 25.8% (n=468) of primary facilities use permanent building structures and additional classes are an urgent need for 20.2% (n=134) of schools.

• Gender disparities are also evident as the mean average percentage of girl children attending school is only 48.3% compared to the mean average percentage of all children attending school at 62.9%, as well as the fact girls consistently display higher dropout rates than males across counties of return.

WASHWater is not easily accessible for the majority of communities, and affects the prevalence of disease, seasonal migration, and cattle-related conflict.

• 35.3% (n=663) of water is provided by boreholes while natural sources such as streams provide 23.0% (n=433), and rivers 19.6% (n=368). Only 1.5% (n=28) of water is received from taps.

• These sources are not reliable and water is only accessible from streams 13.3% (n=53) of the year and only accessible from boreholes 38.4% (n=289) of the year. Seasonal changes and exclusion of certain groups are significant other barriers to accessing water.

• 53.1% (n=383) of bomas have not received sanitation and hygiene education. In those bomas where such awareness raising sessions were carried out, hand-washing, drinking water and hygiene were discussed topics.

ProtectionInternal and external threats pose significant threats to the population’s security, livelihoods, and health. Overall, women feel insecure at both domestic and external levels.

• Epidemics are perceived as the greatest external threat by 22.7% (n=183) of community representatives surveyed.

• In terms of sexual and gender based violence, 15.1% (n=469) of respondents found violence against women to be the most significant community threat and 31.0% (n=854) of female respondents felt insecure outside their homes. Over a third, 37.4% (n=424), of women respondents never report cases of violence perpetrated against them or their children to formal institutions.

• The main response to gender based violence was to report the incident to traditional courts (34.2% where n=436) which are present in 97% (n=262) of bomas surveyed.

Village Assessment Survey Report (2013) | 1

1. InTroduCTIon

On July 9, 2011, South Sudan declared its independence, becoming the world’s 193rd country and Africa’s 54th state. Unlike other postcolonial states, South Sudan’s independence was not granted at the discretion of a non-belligerent colonial power. Instead, decades of armed conflict with the North, culminated in an internationally brokered peace in 2005 that allowed the option of separation.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Government of (Northern) Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) ended two decades of civil war in the region and established a shared system of governance between the Government of National Unity (GoNU) in the North and the semi-autonomous Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS). Since that time, the GoSS has been responsible for the governance of the region now known as South Sudan. In accordance with the terms of the CPA, the GoSS conducted a referendum on self-determination in January 2011, which resulted in an overwhelming turnout, almost universally voting in favor of secession.

The establishment of the CPA resulted in an influx of returnees, and the diaspora into South Sudan, who had left during the decades of civil conflict. Since 2005, large numbers of returnees began arriving into the country spontaneously or in organized movements. Since 2007, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has tracked over 1.8 million returnees arriving in South Sudan. In addition, South Sudan continues to receive large influxes of nationals from Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Sudan engaging in business, trade and other economic activities.

There are significant livelihood challenges for local communities and returnees alike with regard to a lack of basic services and infrastructure, food security and potable water, and protection issues. The Government of the Republic of South Sudan (GRSS) and international partners require considerable support in ensuring the sustainable reintegration of returnees into local communities.

Socioeconomic disparities, austerity measures, and continuing regional conflicts have added to the complexities of reintegration and reconstruction in the pursuit of sustainable socioeconomic stability. Government expenditures have declined in 2012 due to the loss of oil revenue resulting from disagreements over transit fees and other disputes with Sudan. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita declined from $1,765 in 2011 to an estimated $1,101 in 2012.1 The resulting austerity measures have further reduced development and humanitarian expenditures.

1.1 objeCTIveS

IOM recognizes that reintegration and development efforts must be based on community and area-based approaches that take into consideration all groups as equal stakeholders in the integration process (returnees, IDPs and members of the host community). In this regard, reintegration efforts aim for the “progressive establishment of conditions which enable returnees and their communities to exercise their social, economic, civil, political and cultural rights, and on that basis to enjoy peaceful, productive and dignified lives.”2

The Village Assessment Survey (VAS) was conducted across 30 priority counties in order to provide the GRSS, partner organizations and other humanitarian actors with a comprehensive set of tools highlighting community challenges in critical sectors that is based on input from all stakeholders in the communities selected for assessment. The following table outlines the objectives of the survey with regards to sector.

1 IMF World Economic Outlook Database (October 2012). Gross domestic product per capita, current prices in US Dollars. Retrieved from www.imf.org.2 This report employs guidelines defined in IOM’s “Sustainable Reintegration of Returning South Sudanese Strategy” (March 2012).

2 | Village Assessment Survey Report (2013)

Table 1: Objectives of VAS Survey by Sector...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Sector Objectives

Basic Services and Infrastructure

Identify the presence and status of basic services and infrastructure including health facilities, schools, roads, police stations, water points, public transport, and mobile phone coverage.

Land Understand the allocation of land to returnees; the types of settlements in communities and the types of shelters commonly built.

Civil Society Groups Describe the presence of civil society groups in communities including youth and women’s organizations.

Livelihoods Present information on crop, livestock and fisheries production, selling, and support, including coping strategies, productivity barriers and alternative sources of revenue.

HealthProvide information regarding the availability of Primary Health Care Units, Primary Health Care Centres, Hospitals, and other health facilities; access constraints, staffing levels, immunization, and the types of health education offered.

Education Present information regarding school facilities, dropouts, enrollments, available staff, the types of curriculum, and alternatives sources of education.

WASH

Provide information regarding water sources, water sanitation programs, the accessibility of clean water, the availability of latrines and other sanitation facilities, and the availability of education and training regarding good hygiene practices and water treatment.

Protection

Evaluate the potential for external and internal threats to livelihoods and health, particularly natural hazards, conflict, epidemics and hunger; understand local systems for conflict resolution, including the accessibility to traditional or judicial courts and police stations.

1.2 MeTHodoLogy

1.2.1 VAS QueStiOnnAireSThe objective of the VAS is to evaluate the immediate challenges faced by populations living in the counties assessed. Thus, the questionnaires targeted various levels of administrative structure and public services from several stakeholders in an attempt to ensure the accuracy of information collected independently at the boma and payam level.

The sources of data used in the VAS are derived from four integrated questionnaires: the Boma Questionnaire, which is a multiparty response instrument where a group of administrators and representatives at the boma level were interviewed; Payam Authorities Questionnaire, which is a set of questions for a senior payam authority; and the Health and Education Technical Questionnaires which were administered to facility staff in the bomas where the boma questionnaire was utilized. The following table highlights the sources of information for the sectors under study.


Table 2: VAS Questionnaire type by Sector...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Sector Village Assessment Survey (VAS) Source

Basic Services and Infrastructure Boma Questionnaire

Land Boma Questionnaire

Civil Society Groups Boma Questionnaire

Livelihoods Boma Questionnaire

Health Health Technical and Boma Questionnaire

Education Education Technical and Boma Questionnaire

WASH Boma Questionnaire

Protection Boma Questionnaire

The Boma Questionnaire gathers information in relation to basic services and socio-economic conditions through interviews with relevant stakeholders at the boma level. Further, evidence gathered during previous field assessments indicated that the decision-making process within South Sudanese communities tends to integrate other members of the community, including elderly, youth, and female representatives. In consultation with RRC, IOM organized the discussion during the Boma Questionnaires as an open process, whereby recognized and accepted members of the communities were allowed to contribute.

Therefore, the Boma Questionnaires were submitted to selected target groups at the boma level who discussed the topics of the questionnaire in a group context—producing a multiparty response. The boma administrator, as the individual responsible for the public affairs, was invited to participate in addition to representatives of the returnee community, females, and youth community—in order to maintain gender and demographic balance.

The Payam Authority Questionnaire was conducted with senior payam authorities contacted through the RRC. The questionnaire provides an additional source of data and a comparison for the boma level responses of the Boma Questionnaire. This report generally offers supplemental information as the boma, health, and education questionnaires provide more specific data than the Payam Authority Questionnaire.

The health and education technical questionnaires reviewed the availability of public services within the selected sites. Enumerators conducted surveys with the administrative authorities of the respective facilities, as health and educational personnel were determined as able to provide the most accurate information regarding the level of capacity and structure of public services provided to the boma.

1.2.2 COunty SeleCtiOnIOM has managed the Tracking & Monitoring Programme since 2007, which involves the registration of every returnee household arriving to a particular location. The programme aims to gather detailed data on returnee numbers, routes, modes of transport, and final destinations in order to assist in the development of early reintegration assistance and to facilitate long-term planning, including emergency preparedness, early recovery and development.

IOM initially intended to implement the Village Assessment Survey (VAS) in all ten states of South Sudan, however Jonglei and Upper Nile States were excluded during the operational planning phase due to unfolding humanitarian emergencies in both states. IOM proceeded with the assessment exercise in counties within the remaining eight states.


IOM prioritized—to the greatest extent possible—the counties with the highest numbers of returnees, as stated in the Strategy for Sustainable Reintegration of Returning South Sudanese.3 The strategy identifies the returnee populations and compares variance across states and between counties; reintegration assistance efforts are focused in the 19 counties with the highest concentration of returnees—as it has been determined that this would maximize programmatic efficiency, with 72% of the returned population benefitting from such reintegration efforts.4

State capitals were excluded from the assessment due to the fact that these had already been object of previous studies. While payams within the state capitals were not surveyed, the payams surrounding and outside of the capital are included. In consultations with the RRC, UN agencies, and state-level partners, counties not previously considered were identified for the assessment. Once the selection phase was completed, a total of 30 priority counties were identified and chosen for the survey.5 This is detailed in Table 3.

3 Chaired by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, the Reintegration Theme Group for South Sudan (RTGSS) adopted the Final Draft strategy in March 2012. The strategy was the result of extensive consultations with UN agencies, funds and programmes, UNMISS, government counterparts at the state level, donors, NGOs and builds on the existing GRSS Guidelines for Return and Reintegration, as well as the State Reintegration Plans and the South Sudanese Development Plan. 4 International Organization for Migration (March 2012). Sustainable Reintegration of Returning South Sudanese: Final Draft Strategy. p. 9.5 Due to insecurity teams were unable to fully assess Raja County, Western Bahr el Ghazal state. Report reflects only partial data.


Table 3: Characteristics of Counties Selected for VAS...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

State County Payams Bomas Villages Returnees NBS 2012 Projected Population

Central Equatoria Kajo-Keji 5 31 250 38,743 196,422

Central Equatoria Lainya 5 15 125 36,300 99,095

Central Equatoria Morobo 5 17 93 60,110 114,948

Central Equatoria Yei 5 22 100 30,159 223,502

Eastern Equatoria Ikotos 6 33 154 26,962 93,918

Eastern Equatoria Torit 7 31 128 16,749 110,662

Lakes Rumbek Centre 6 24 288 53,593 170,364

Lakes Rumbek East 7 20 278 41,231 136,283

Lakes Yirol West 7 25 235 31,833 114,490

Lakes Yirol East 7 22 246 40,309 74,783

Northern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil Centre 7 29 154 50,931 46,407

Northern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil East 7 71 705 155,183 343,858

Northern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil North 5 31 288 104,244 143,267

Northern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil South 8 25 262 539,08 81,888

Northern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil West 9 29 247 96,146 184,418

Unity Guit 8 24 82 8,633 36,618

Unity Koch 7 53 389 41,516 83,061

Unity Leer 8 46 298 46,237 58,828

Unity Mayiendit 8 28 330 16,426 59,672

Unity Panyijar 9 41 426 14,122 56,277

Unity Rubkona 8 54 167 79,751 111,212

Warrap Gogrial East 6 13 81 19,728 114,593

Warrap Gogrial West 9 28 193 38,429 270,631

Warrap Tonj North 9 43 214 18,998 183,314

Warrap Twic 6 22 134 59,648 227,343

Western Bahr El Ghazal Jur River 6 32 156 48,504 141,762

Western Bahr El Ghazal Raja 5 11 43 21,893 60,290

Western Bahr El Ghazal Wau 3 21 75 51,918 167,890

Western Equatoria Maridi 5 17 71 6,567 91,491

Western Equatoria Mundri West 4 13 58 12,810 37,695

Total 197 871 6,270 1,321,581 3,834,982

This county assessment amounts to the largest village assessment preformed in South Sudan to date, accounting for 6,270 villages within 871 bomas. 30 priority counties were selected that account for over 1.3 million returnees—as represented in above.6

6 Data on returns are from the IOM Tracking and Monitoring Database, 2007-2012. Population estimates are 2012 projections provided by the South Sudan National Bureau of Statistics based on the 2008 Census.


Past IOM Village Assessment Surveys collected data on the village as a unit. During the survey design phase, it became evident that village representatives would not be able to accurately answer all sections of the questionnaires, which instead could be if addressed at the boma level. Because of this, the 2013 VAS was conducted at the boma (rather than at the village) level, in order to ensure completeness and accuracy. The boma is the lowest administrative unit in the local government structure in South Sudan,7 and is headed by a chief administrator elected by the community who is able to provide detailed information as to basic services, markets, and infrastructure within the boma. Field enumerators further collected the names and GPS coordinated of each village within the boma, as well as basic information on the main infrastructures and accessibility to key facilities.

During the development of the selection and enumeration process, the RRC partnership provided extensive support; 228 local enumerators were assigned to work in tandem with 171 IOM volunteers to ensure proper and effective data collection. A reference map showing the roll out of the data collection phase can be consulted in Appendix I.

As a result of this collaboration, the Village Assessment Surveys were thoroughly verified for quality control at the county level, and surveys with unreliable or questioned information were referred for further verification. The data was then consolidated and centralized at IOM’s data center in Juba and developed for analysis.

1.3 dATA AnALySIS

Data analysis was conducted using cleaned data for all four integrated questionnaires. In order to facilitate interpretation, the priority counties included in the assessment were re-classified as high, medium, or low counties of return. The classification denotes the ratio of returnees in comparison with the host population. As indicated in the table below, counties of low return are those counties in which up to 26.9% of the population are returnees; medium counties of return have a returnee population ranging from 27.5% to 36.6% of that county’s total population; and high counties of return are those counties in which 45.0% or more of the population can be classified as returnees.

Table 4: Classification System for Priority Counties included in 2013 VAS Report...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Classification Percentage of Returnees

Low Up to 26.9

Medium 27.0 to 44.9

High 45.0 and Above

7 Laws of South Sudan (2009). Land Act. p. 7.


Of the thirty priority counties, ten were assigned to each classification. The following indicates the classification of the priority counties using the ratio of returnees to the projected 2012 population as provided by the National Bureau of Statistics.

Table 5: Classification of the Priority Counties by the Numbers of Returnees...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

State County ReturneesRatio of Returnees Population to Total

PopulationClassification

Central Equatoria Kajo-Keji 38,743 0.18 Low returnCentral Equatoria Lainya 36,300 0.37 Middle returnCentral Equatoria Morobo 60,110 0.52 High returnCentral Equatoria Yei 30,159 0.13 Low returnEastern Equatoria Ikotos 26,962 0.29 Middle returnEastern Equatoria Torit 16,749 0.15 Low returnLakes Rumbek Centre 53,593 0.31 Middle returnLakes Rumbek East 41,231 0.3 Middle returnLakes Yirol West 31,833 0.28 Middle returnLakes Yirol East 40,309 0.54 High returnNorthern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil Centre 50,931 1.1 High returnNorthern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil East 155,183 0.45 High returnNorthern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil North 104,244 0.73 High returnNorthern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil South 53,908 0.66 High returnNorthern Bahr El Ghazal Aweil West 96,146 0.52 High returnUnity Guit 8,633 0.24 Low returnUnity Koch 41,516 0.5 High returnUnity Leer 46,237 0.79 High returnUnity Mayiendit 16,426 0.28 Middle returnUnity Panyijar 14,122 0.25 Low returnUnity Rubkona 79,751 0.72 High returnWarrap Gogrial East 19,728 0.17 Low returnWarrap Gogrial West 38,429 0.14 Low returnWarrap Tonj North 18,998 0.1 Low returnWarrap Twic 59,648 0.26 Low returnWestern Bahr El Ghazal Jur River 48,504 0.34 Middle returnWestern Bahr El Ghazal Raja 21,893 0.36 Middle returnWestern Bahr El Ghazal Wau 51,918 0.31 Middle returnWestern Equatoria Maridi 6,567 0.07 Low returnWestern Equatoria Mundri West 12,810 0.34 Middle return


1.4 InTerPreTATIon

The Boma Questionnaire provides the bulk of the data used in this assessment, and it is therefore important to recognize that any analysis provided is demonstrative of the perceptions of boma administrators and representatives in the 30 priority counties. Data was not collected directly from the returnee population, though returnee representatives contributed to the surveys and reference is made to the situation for returned persons where relevant.

Where applicable, the VAS is aggregated at the state level to explain geographical variations in key indicators—though it is important to keep in mind that state capitals were not included in the assessment. Further, the three categories applied to priority counties are not representative of all returnee populations. Five of the ten highest returnee priority counties are in Northern Bahr el Ghazal State and therefore cross-tabulations with county classification will reflect this geographical bias.

This general overview of the data is a supplement to the more detailed analysis provided in the annexed county profiles and GIS analyses included in the overall report portfolio.

A VAS enumerator interviews a payam administrator in Aweil East (Gianluca Loi, 2012).


2. FIndIngS

2.1 bASIC ServICeS And InFrASTruCTure

The VAS assessed the perceptions of the availability of social services and the level of satisfaction where services exist. The assessment paid particular attention to essential public services such as access to health facilities, education, water, security, roads and markets.

There is a strong perception of a lack of basic services and facilities. Where services do exist, there are high rates of dissatisfaction. Of the bomas surveyed, 49.3% (n=400) stated that they do not have a road, 54.5% (n=464) do not have a health facility, and 25.2% (n=218) do not have a primary school. More than half (65.3%, n=558) lack a police station, and 67.4% (n=561) do not have mobile phone coverage. Orphanages are the most lacking facility, with a mere 4.0% (n=34) reported as present, followed by police stations, with only 34.7% (n=296) of bomas reporting its presence. Table 6 illustrates the presence of facilities across the bomas surveyed as identified by community representatives.

Table 6: Presence of Facilities in Bomas by Facility Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Facility Not Present Present Total Respondents

% n=x % n=x % n=x

School 25.2 218 74.8 647 100.0 865

Health Facility 54.5 464 45.5 388 100.0 852

Police Station 65.3 558 34.7 296 100.0 854

Orphanage 96.0 805 4.0 34 100.0 839

Religious Establishment 41.0 351 59.0 504 100.0 855

Water Points 18.9 162 81.1 695 100.0 857

Mobile Phone Coverage 67.4 561 32.7 272 100.0 833

Of those bomas that possess basic infrastructure, there is almost universal dissatisfaction with those services and infrastructure. Among those bomas that possess health facilities, 81.1% (n=305) described them as unsatisfactory. Similarly, 82.8% (n=629) of bomas with schools described the facilities as unsatisfactory. Table 7 represents the satisfaction (and dissatisfaction) levels among community representatives who identified having access to basic facilities listed.


Table 7: Satisfaction with Facilities Where Present by Type of Facility (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Facility Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Total Respondents

n=x % n=x % n=x %

School 108 17.2 521 82.8 629 100.0

Health Facility 71 18.9 305 81.1 376 100.0

Police Station 89 31.8 191 68.2 280 100.0

Orphanage 8 27.6 21 72.4 29 100.0

Religious Establishment 187 39.1 291 60.9 478 100.0

Water Points 86 13.1 572 86.9 658 100.0

Mobile Phone Coverage 95 36.3 167 63.7 262 100.0

Findings from the VAS reflect considerable gaps in basic services and infrastructure. The lack of basic services will continue to be particularly distressing for returnees who, due to their lack of social networks and knowledge of available basic services, may struggle to develop appropriate reintegration coping mechanisms.

2.1.2 TRANSPoRT INFRASTRuCTuReSouth Sudan has 13,000 km2 of accessible roads in an overall landmass of 650,000km2, representing 2% of national frontage or feeder roads. The lack of transport infrastructure hinders the expansion of commercial activities and market and economic development, particularly in the areas distant from state capitals such as Juba, Malakal, Wau, and Bor. Additionally, the delivery of humanitarian assistance and security in South Sudan is impacted, as government organizations and development partners are unable to deliver protection and primary support during the midst of natural hazards and conflict.

Overall, access to roads and bridges was reported as lacking by the boma administrators surveyed. Half (50.7%; n=412) of bomas reported having some measure of road access and only 26.1% (n=103) were satisfied with the current state of these roads. Where bridges are available (14.8%; n=125), 65.2% (n=73) were dissatisfied with the existing state of the bridges. Additionally, there is a perceived lack of available public transportation, as 84.0% (n=715) of surveyed bomas reported an absence of available transport. The following table shows the presence of roads, bridges, and public transport in the surveyed bomas.

Table 8: Presence of Roads, Bridges and Public Transport in Bomas by Infrastructure Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Infrastructure Yes No Total

n=x % n=x % n=x %

Roads 412 50.7 400 49.3 812 100.0

Bridge 125 14.8 720 85.2 845 100.0

Public Transport 135 15.9 715 84.1 850 100.0

Community representatives echoed these sentiments of dissatisfaction with regards to infrastructure. Table 9 illustrates satisfaction rates among bomas surveyed as perceived by community representatives.


Table 9: Satisfaction with Roads, Bridges and Public Transport Where Present by Infrastructure Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Infrastructure Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Total Respondents

n=x % n=x % n=x %

Roads 103 26.1 291 73.9 394 100.0

Bridge 39 34.8 73 65.2 112 100.0

Public Transport 38 29.0 93 71.0 131 100.0

The poor quality transport infrastructure directly impacts the availability goods in markets and the ability for consumers to access those markets. As a result, business operators and consumers are forced to commute for several hours in order to sell livestock or acquire basic needs. Of the community representatives surveyed, 25.9% (n=161) report a travel time of up to two hours to the nearest major market travelling by foot, while only 11.9 % (n=74) of community representatives surveyed stated an available market within an hour’s commute by foot. This is further detailed in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Average Time Spent Travelling by Foot to Nearest Major Market in Hours (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

The World Bank Sustainable Development Unit further stresses the importance of infrastructure improvements, as the poor quality of roads also affects the price of commodities in markets. One report cites that poor roads between Yei and Kaya—South Sudan’s border with Uganda—prolong the travel time of the 90 km journey to approximately 24 hours because road quality leads to an average journey speed of 4 kilometers per hour.8 This cost is ultimately transferred to customers, as traders have to incorporate transport cost into their price point.9

2.2 LAnd

The proper management of land resources including allocation policy is vital to the future of the economy, as well as for the reintegration of returnees. Current policies, including the Land Act (2009), Local Government Act (2009), and Investment Promotion Act (2009), promote foreign investment and large-scale land allocation with community consultation.

8 Ranganathan, Rupa and Celcilia M. Briceno-Garmendia (September 2011). South Sudan’s Infrastructure: A Continental Perspective. Policy Research Working Paper. The World Bank: Africa Region: Sustainable Development Group. p. 12.9 World Bank Report calculates that 16 percent of the overall cost of food and beverage sector in South Sudan can be attributed to transport costs. Ibid. p. 12.

1 hour or less, 11.9%

2 hours, 20.0%

3 hours, 25.9%

4 hours, 17.2%

5-10 hours, 18.5%12+ hours, 6.4%


2.2.1 lAnd AllOCAtiOnOverall, 89.2% (n=757) of the bomas surveyed report that land is not allocated to returnees. There are differences in the allocation of land to returnees across counties, with the highest percentages occurring in 55.6% (n=5) of the bomas in Raja County in Western Bahr el Ghazal, but overall the allocation of land appears to be limited. The following table illustrates the allocation of land to returnees by county as reported by boma representatives.

Table 10: Reporting Land Allocation to Returnees by Community Members by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

State County Classification Yes No Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x

CEQ Kajo-Keji Low return 6.7 2 93.3 28 100.0 30

CEQ Lainya Middle return 0.0 0 100.0 15 100.0 15

CEQ Morobo High return 0.0 0 100.0 17 100.0 17

CEQ Yei Low return 4.5 1 95.5 21 100.0 22

EEQ Ikotos Middle return 9.4 3 90.6 29 100.0 32

EEQ Torit Low return 3.3 1 96.7 29 100.0 30

LAK Rumbek Centre Middle return 18.2 4 81.8 18 100.0 22

LAK Rumbek East Middle return 15.8 3 84.2 16 100.0 19

LAK Yirol West Middle return 4.0 1 96.0 24 100.0 25

LAK Yirol East High return 33.3 7 66.7 14 100.0 21

NBEG Aweil Centre High return 7.1 2 92.9 26 100.0 28

NBEG Aweil East High return 26.1 18 73.9 51 100.0 69

NBEG Aweil North High return 16.1 5 83.9 26 100.0 31

NBEG Aweil South High return 8.0 2 92.0 23 100.0 25

NBEG Aweil West High return 17.2 5 82.8 24 100.0 29

UNI Guit Low return 4.3 1 95.7 22 100.0 23

UNI Koch High return 7.5 4 92.5 49 100.0 53

UNI Leer High return 6.7 3 93.3 42 100.0 45

UNI Mayiendit Middle return 7.1 2 92.9 26 100.0 28

UNI Panyijar Low return 2.5 1 97.5 39 100.0 40

UNI Rubkona High return 0.0 0 100.0 52 100.0 52

WAR Gogrial East Low return 7.7 1 92.3 12 100.0 13

WAR Gogrial West Low return 14.3 4 85.7 24 100.0 28

WAR Tonj North Low return 7.3 3 92.7 38 100.0 41

WAR Twic Low return 4.5 1 95.5 21 100.0 22

WBEG Jur River Middle return 32.3 10 67.7 21 100.0 31

WBEG Raja Middle return 55.6 5 44.4 4 100.0 9

WBEG Wau Middle return 0.0 0 100.0 20 100.0 20

WEQ Maridi Low return 6.3 1 93.8 15 100.0 16

WEQ Mundri West Middle return 15.4 2 84.6 11 100.0 13

Total 10.8 92 89.2 757 100.0 849


The counties of middle and high return tend to have a slightly higher allocation of land for returnees, with 14.0% (n=30) and 12.4% (n=46) of the bomas allocating land respectively. This finding represents the possible effect of state policies aiming to assist returnees in various area, such as Lakes State, where the former governor provided 200 plots for returnees in 2011; and in Northern Bahr el Ghazal where 900 plots of land were allocated to returnees in 2012 due to the collaboration of state officials, UNDP and USAID.10 Table 11 represents the number of community representatives who stated their respective bomas allocate land as per their classification.

Table 11: Total Number of Bomas Reporting Allocating Land by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Allocation of Land Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 6.0 16 14.0 30 12.4 46 10.8 92

No 94.0 249 86.0 184 87.6 324 89.2 757

While the national policy of the GRSS is to allocate land plots to returnees, the pace of land allocation has not been consistent with the rate of returnees, which has negatively impacted their food security and livelihoods.11 This has caused many returnees to settle in urban areas, further exacerbating food insecurity.12

According to the Land Act, there are three types of land in South Sudan—leasehold, freehold and customary. Customary land ownership has particular importance for returnees as it is used for residency, agricultural production, and forestry or grazing; this type of land is granted to the landholder for life and can be inherited. The allocation of customary land depends on the decision of traditional authorities with preapproval of the local government.13 When returnees do not settle into areas that are their ancestral homes, as promoted by GRSS, they face greater potential difficulties in accessing land.

Land allocation is imperative for the appropriate reintegration of returnees, who may arrive in their places of origin to find their land occupied by other members of the community despite legal provisions that stipulate restitution rights in case of displacement during the civil war.14 This situation has generated disputes between local communities, government officials and returnees, and has been particularly pronounced in urban areas like Juba, where land evacuated during the civil war was later occupied by IDPs or SPLA soldiers that claim rightful ownership over the land due to their involvement in the war.15

Land allocation, when it does occur, does not necessarily mean that land allocated per household is suitable. The above analysis requires knowledge of the average feddans allocated to returnees to understand whether plots of land fully support livelihoods, particularly crops that require large spaces for production. Furthermore, land that is allocated may only be temporary, as residents can be expected to pay for permanent land tenure—which may be unaffordable.16 Future surveys intending to ascertain land issues among returnees should consider the average number of feddans allocated to returnees in greater detail as well as the value of land allocated vis-à-vis agricultural viability and proximity to other resources and infrastructure.

10 Uma, Julius M. (25 May 2012). “N Bahr el Ghazal allocates land to S. Sudanese Returnees.” South Sudan Tribune. Retrieved from: www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article42705. 11 FAO (2012), The FAO Component of the Consolidated Appeal. p. 6.12 Ibid.13 Laws of South Sudan (2009). Land Act. p. 15.14 Ibid. 38.15 Cherry Leonardi (2011). Paying ‘buckets of blood’ for the land: moral debates over economy, war and state in Southern Sudan. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 49, p 215-240.16 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and Norwegian Refugee Council (30 May 2011). Briefing paper on Southern Sudan: IDPs return to face slow land allocation, and no shelter, basic services or livelihoods. p. 3.


2.2.2 oWNeRSHIP, SeTTLeMeNT TyPeS ANd SHeLTeRIn accordance with the 2009 Land Act, all states in South Sudan are composed of a minimum of 60% permanent settlements. Of the bomas surveyed, 70.0% (n=782) stated that they have permanent settlements—bomas in middle return counties have a lower reported percentage of permanent settlements (62.3%, n=190) when compared to low and high return counties. Community representatives in low return counties noted that bomas possess elevated levels of nomadic lands (15.6%, n=54), while seasonal and temporary types are more pronounced in middle and high return bomas. These figures are detailed in the following table and figure.

Table 12: Land Types by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Settlement Type Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=xPermanent 72.6 252 62.3 190 73.0 340 70.0 782Seasonal 2.6 9 15.4 47 11.8 55 9.9 111Temporary 9.2 32 14.4 44 14.6 68 12.9 144Nomadic 15.6 54 7.2 22 0.6 3 7.1 79Other 0.0 0 0.7 2 0.0 0 0.2 2Total 100.0 347 100.0 305 100.0 466 100.0 1,118Cases 271 219 376 866

Figure 2: Percentage of Land ownership by the County Classification and Settlement Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Across all priority counties, it was found that land is primarily classified as ancestral, with low return zones having the most ancestral land at 52.3%. Communal lands are also a large part of land distributions across all three zones. Individual land ownership is pronounced in high return counties, comprising 24.7% of land composition, in comparison to low return zones where individual land accounts for only 9.3% of all lands. The following figure represents these percentages, as well as the other types of land ownership as expressed by community representatives (for further reference, please see Table 1 in Annex II).

72.6

62.3

73

2.6

15.4 11.9

9.2 14.4 14.6 15.6

7.2 0.7

Low return counties Medium returncounties

High return counties

PermanentSeasonal

TemporaryNomadicOther


Figure 3: Percentage of Land ownership by the County Classification and Settlement Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

When this figure is compared the previous survey results on the allocation of land, there does appear to be a connection between the amount of ancestral land and the amount of land allocated to returnees, however the degree of correlation cannot be ascertained. Low return counties have the highest amount of ancestral land, and also have the lowest allocation of land returnees.

The bomas surveyed overwhelmingly identified mud huts or tukuls as a primarily type of housing, a reflection of the national trend in shelter towards mud huts over others types of housing. According to the Center for Affordable Housing in Africa, 84% of South Sudanese utilize tukuls as their primary housing type—with 65% being built out of mud, and 19% with sticks.17 Figure 4 shows the types of housing structures as reported by the community representatives surveyed (for further reference, please see Table 2 in Annex II).

Figure 4: Types of Shelter by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

The majority of bomas surveyed (94.0%, n=820), indicated that shelter construction is reliant on nearby forests for the construction of their tukuls, with mud wood poles and grass as the main construction materials. Most bomas (81.0%) report being required to walk between 1 to 4 hours searching for construction materials in the nearby forests, with only 19.9 % of bomas reporting the use of materials acquired in the local market.

17 Kayiira, Duncan (2012). “South Sudan Housing Finance Report.” Centre for Affordable Housing Africa. pg. 6.

9.3

35.4

52.3

0.3 0.8 2.0

16.1

33.4

47.8

0.6 1.5 0.6

24.7 28.1

44.7

1.3 0.7

0.4 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Individual Communal Ancestral Leased Informal Other

Low return county

Middle return county

High return county

18.1

7.4 2.5

23.7

8.2 1.6

27.1

11.1

1.3 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Tukul Cottage (brick wall with thatched

roofing)

Cottage (mud wall with iron sheet

roofing)

Permanent house (concrete wall with

iron roofing)

Low return county

Middle return county

High return county

72.166.6

60.5


The findings above suggest that the construction of shelter is often without inputs from markets. Cottage types of shelter are generally among those with the lowest living standards and are more vulnerable to structural impermanence, poor water and sanitation, and unsecure spaces for assets. The lack of inputs in markets for residential construction is a significant indicator of poor living standards.

2.3 CIvIL SoCIeTy grouPS

Because of the importance of civil society groups to the development of South Sudan, the VAS examined the presence of social organizations across the survey area. The great majority of bomas surveyed confirmed the existence of women associations, with 96.7% (n=84) noting their presence. Further, 97.8% (n=852) of bomas acknowledged the presence of youth associations, and 97.0% (n=845) noted the existence of Boma Development Committees—all of which provide a major foundation of development efforts. Table 13 illustrates the civil society groups operating among the surveyed bomas.

Table 13: Percentages of Bomas with Civil Society Groups by Type of Group (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Civil Society Group Yes No Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Boma Development Committee 97.0 845 3.0 26 100.0 871

Parent Teacher Association 98.3 856 1.7 15 100.0 871

Religious Association 95.6 833 4.4 38 100.0 871

Community Protection Group 93.6 815 6.4 56 100.0 871

Youth Association 97.8 852 2.2 19 100.0 871

Farmer Association 95.6 833 4.4 38 100.0 871

Herder Association 94.3 821 5.7 50 100.0 871

Women Association 96.7 842 3.3 29 100.0 871

Council of Elders 94.3 821 5.7 50 100.0 871

Traditional Courts 95.8 834 4.3 37 100.0 871

Others 3.0 26 97.0 845 100.0 871

According to the South Sudan Development Plan, providing both mechanisms of social development, as well as policies targeting the empowerment of women and youth will improve economic prospects for all by increasing human capital, creating employment opportunities, and reducing poverty. With women and youth at the core of development goals, the promotion of civil society groups has become a cornerstone of regional development focuses.

Despite the prevalence of civil society organizations, little is known as to the effects of these groups on local communities, as little time series data is available to examine perception trends at the boma level.


2.4 LIveLIHoodS

2.4.1 FARMINGDespite the large amount of arable land throughout the South Sudan, only 4% of land is cultivated.18 The vast majority (95%) of the population is either directly or indirectly dependent on small share or subsistence farming.19 The lack of infrastructure, as discussed previously, in addition to a lack of skilled labor, has made it difficult for the agricultural industry to experience the large-scale growth needed to support the population. Returning skilled labourors face problems with lack of employment opportunities, tools, and credit.20

ProductionOf the surveyed bomas, 99.2% (n=871) reported subsistence farming activities, with sorghum being the most predominantly farmed crop, followed by maize, groundnuts, and sesame. Households on average were significantly less likely to farm cassava, rice and millet. It is important to note that responses varied greatly depending by region. Figure 5 demonstrates the aggregated prevalence of crop production in the bomas surveyed. As would be expected, carbohydrates and starches dominate subsistence farming, which is also linked to low dietary diversity food scores and malnutrition, as will be discussed in later sections. (For further reference, please see Table 3 in Annex II).

Figure 5: Aggregated Production of Crops by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

In addition, maize is grown in a wide range of soil and environmental conditions and is therefore expected to be a common staple. There is also a high percentage of vegetables grown in middle and high return counties—this may be due to NGO support for vegetable production and/or the tendency for returnee plots to be small, however such correlations cannot be conclusively drawn from the current data.

18 Ding, Shannon, and Elise Tosun (2012). “’Little Pushes’ for Agricultural Development in Greater Equatoria, Republic of South Sudan.” Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Harvard Kennedy School of Government. p. 2.19 Ibid.20 Maxwell, Daniel Kirsten Gelsdorf and Martina Santschi (July 2012). “Livelihoods, basic services and social protection in South Sudan.” Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium. p. 33.

Maize, 19.2%

Sorghum, 19.5%

Cassava, 6.5%Groundnut, 17.7%

Sesame, 14.4%

Vegetables, 11.7%

Millet, 6.3%Rice, 1.3% Food Crops, 3.4%


Problems Farmers face multiple challenges in the production of agricultural products. Boma respondents cited crop damage (28.3%, n=817) and natural hazards (25.9%, n=749) as the most frequent issue they confronted. Crop disease (19.6%, n=565), market accessibility (14.6%, n=421) and conflict (11.6%, n=336) were also significant issues reported by respondent. Table 14 illustrates the breadth of problems cited by bomas surveyed. It is important to note that these figures are not based upon a technical hazard analysis, but rather represent the responses of the boma representatives surveyed for the purpose of the VAS.

Table 14: Problems Affecting Crop Production (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Problem % n=xCrop Disease 19.6 565Other Crop Damage 28.3 817Market Accessibility 14.6 421Conflict 11.6 336Natural Hazards 25.9 749

The variable nature of the threats facing farmers is further exemplified when examining issues at the state level. According to respondents, Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Western Bahr el Ghazal are most susceptible to crop damage, most especially from pests. Crop disease is particularly harsh in Warrap State, while the issue of market accessibility is perceived most acutely by those surveyed in Western Equatoria and Eastern Equatoria. Conflicts affect food production most profoundly in Lakes State and Central Equatoria and natural hazards (including dry spell and drought) reach furthest in Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Western Bahr el Ghazal. These issues and the tendencies of responses are detailed in Table 15.

Table 15: Problems Affecting Food Crops by State by Problem Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Problem CEQ EEQ LAK NBEG UNI WAR WBEG WEQ Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Other Crop Damage 24.6 81 28.8 63 24.8 79 36.9 183 26.3 232 26.7 94 30.7 57 26.7 28 28.3 817

Crop Disease 20.6 68 19.2 42 18.2 58 11.5 183 21.8 232 27.0 94 14.5 57 24.8 28 19.6 565

Market Accessibility 17.9 59 21.5 47 14.4 46 15.1 75 11.1 98 9.7 34 19.4 36 24.8 26 14.6 421

Conflict 19.4 64 9.1 20 20.4 65 1.0 5 15.3 135 9.1 32 4.3 8 6.7 7 11.6 336

Natural Hazards 17.6 58 21.5 47 22.3 71 35.5 176 25.4 224 27.6 97 31.2 58 17.1 18 25.9 749

Total 100.0 330 100.0 219 100.0 319 100.0 496 100.0 881 100.0 352 100.0 186 100.0 105 100.0 2,888

Cases 84 63 90 184 245 106 64 29 865

Crop damage was cited as the primary problem affecting crop production and listed as such by 28.3% of respondents. Sources of crop damage are most often insects and other pests (32.1%, n= 213), as well as birds (27.3%, n=181) and wildlife (22.5%, n=149).


Table 16: Specific Causes of Crop damage by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Pest n=x %Livestock 352 17.0Wildlife 465 22.5Birds 565 27.3Insects Pests 664 32.1Other 21 1.0Total 2,067 100.0

Natural hazards were the second most common issue affecting crop production cited by 25.9% (n=749) of respondents. Lack of water including dry spells (54.4%, n=563) and drought (19.2, n=198) were the primary challenges, though floods are also and issue listed by 24.3% (n=251) of those surveyed. Table 17 further discusses the specific natural hazards affecting crop production.

Table 17: Specific Natural Hazards Affecting Crop Production by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Hazard n=x %

Drought 199 19.2

Floods 251 24.3

Dry Spells 563 54.4

Others 22 2.1

Total 1,035 100.0

Natural hazards are not evenly distributed throughout the country. Survey results show that dry spells affect Central Equatoria (83.6%, n= 43) and Northern Bahr el Ghazal (69.5%, n= 108) more than other locations, while Warrap is most prone to droughts (45.5%, n=30). Unity State (38.6%, n= 50) and Lakes State (31.3%, n= 11) are alternatively those most susceptible to flooding. The following table shows the effect of natural hazards by state as identified by community representatives.

Table 18: Natural Hazards Affecting Crop Production by State and Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Problem CEQ EEQ LAK NBEG UNI WAR WBEG WEQ Total


Drought 3.3 2 20.3 12 13.0 15 6.3 14 19.0 64 45.5 65 34.2 27 0.0 0 19.2 199

Floods 8.2 5 18.6 11 31.3 36 20.6 46 38.6 130 15.4 22 1.3 1 0.0 0 24.3 251

Dry Spells 83.6 51 61.0 36 52.2 60 69.5 155 42.1 142 37.8 54 59.5 47 100.0 18 54.4 563

Other Natural Hazards

4.9 3 0.0 0 3.5 4 3.6 8 0.3 1 1.4 2 5.1 4 0.0 0 2.1 22


Crop disease affects farmers throughout South Sudan and there appears to be a direct inverse correlation between levels of returnee by county and the measured effect of crop disease. As such, counties of low return have the highest instance of crop disease, with 84.9% of boma representatives (n=231) reporting this occurrence; 75.2% (n=167) of boma representatives noted the existence of crop disease among middle return counties and 61.3% (n=321) in counties of high return. This is represented through the following table.

Table 19: existence of Crop disease by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 72.2 629 27.8 242 100.0 871

Subtotal Low return 84.9 231 15.1 41 100.0 272

Subtotal Middle return 75.2 167 24.8 55 100.0 222

Subtotal High return 61.3 231 38.7 146 100.0 377


Market accessibility adds a major hindrance to agriculture productivity and specific causes can be cited as fostering inefficiencies. 33.5% (n=305) of boma representatives noted transport as a cause for market inaccessibility, while 33.3% (n=303) noted that distance to the market creates inaccessibility. This is further detailed in the following Table 20.

Table 20: Specific causes for market inaccessibility by State and Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

CES EEQ LAK NBEG UNI WAR WBEG WEQ Total


Transport 35.3 42 32.3 43 32.0 31 36.2 50 27.0 62 49.2 29 42.6 23 31.3 25 33.5 305

Credit Facility 11.8 14 11.3 15 13.4 13 9.4 13 13.0 30 3.4 2 11.1 6 12.5 10 11.3 103

Cooperatives 10.1 12 12.8 17 8.3 8 6.5 9 13.5 31 0.0 0 1.9 1 8.8 7 9.3 85

Storage Facility 8.4 10 15.0 20 14.4 14 12.3 17 14.4 33 6.8 4 7.4 4 15.0 12 12.5 114

Distance to Market 34.5 41 28.6 38 32.0 31 35.5 49 32.2 74 40.7 24 37.0 20 32.5 26 33.3 303

Total 100.0 119 100.0 133 100.0 97 100.0 138 100.0 230 100.0 59 100.0 54 100.0 80 100.0 910

Cases 56 46 43 72 88 33 31 26 395

NeedsBecause farming is such a universal activity across the survey area, understanding the needs of farmers is essential when analyzing food production and prioritizing interventions. The most common needs cited by community representatives included labor saving devices including tractors and ox driven ploughs 15.5% (n=705) and 13.0% (n=589), respectively, as well as tools (16.4%, n=745), seed (15.4%, n=701), and training (11.6%) (For tabulated data, please refer to Table 13 in Annex II).

Figure 6: Needs of Farmers Identified by Bomas Surveyed (Source: Boma Questionnaire)..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Land, 2.1%Seed, 15.5%

Tools, 16.5%

Fertilizers, 7.7%

Labor, 3.8%Training, 11.6%

Other, 0.4%

Tractor, 15.6%

Compost Fertilizers, 7.2%

Ox Plough, 13.0%

Irrigation Equipment, 6.8%

These priorities indicate that with the proper improved inputs, farmers may be able to increase their yield, even without necessarily expanding their access to land. Only 2.1% (n=95) of community representatives cited land as being a need for farmers, meaning that bomas surveyed are capable maintaining livelihoods through current allotments of land.

WaterWhile Figure 6 shows that 6.8% (n=307) of community representatives noted bomas as needing irrigation equipment, natural hazards involving water—especially dry spells as noted in Table 18—identified water as a hindrance to farmers’ productivity. The following table describes the primary sources of water for farmers as identified by community representatives:


Table 21: Sources of Water for Farming (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source % n=x

Rain-fed 98.5 837

Irrigated 0.7 6

River 0.8 7

Total 100.0 850

Currently, 98.5% of farmers (n=837) were identified as practicing rain fed agriculture. This leaves farmers particularly susceptible to the previously discussed natural hazards.

SeedsRecognized as a primary needs area by community representatives, the sourcing of seeds is a major determining factor in the success of farmers’ food production efforts. Of respondents, 50.7% (n=818) source their seeds from previous harvests. Purchase of seeds from the market is another major source for farmers, as identified by community representatives (23.7%, n=383), followed by development partners (12.6%, n=204) and borrowing from others (9.6%, n=156). Harvesting seeds from previous crops may not be the ideal source for farmers, but external factors such as market access, road access, and availability of services can influence this choice. The following table illustrates seed sources for crop production as identified by community representatives (for more detailed information on seed sources by county classification, please see Table 4 in Annex II).

Table 22: Seed Sources for Crop Production (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source % n=xPrevious Harvest 50.7 818Market 23.7 383Ministry of Agriculture 2.8 46Development Actors 12.6 204Borrowed 9.6 156Other 0.4 6Total 100.0 1,613

Support AvailableAs evidenced in the previous table, support is available for farmers from the local government, various UN agencies (particularly FAO), and NGOs with regards to seed distribution. Communal farms, where farmers work together to share knowledge and increase efficiency and productivity, were identified as the most readily available support option by community representatives (51.6%, n=446). Other available services include agriculture extension services where a trained facilitator provides new knowledge and practices through farmer education, which was acknowledged by 24.7% (n=213) of community representatives. Credit support, most typically in the form of microfinance, was mentioned by only 4.6% (n=40) of those surveyed indicating farmers may be in need of the financing necessary to maximize their farming operations and are not currently able to access such services. The following table represents available support as identified by community representatives (To view the data in tabulated form, please see Table 5 in Annex II).


Figure 7: Types of Support Available for Farmers (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Communal Farming, 51.6%

Communal Farming, 51.6%

Credit Facilities, 4.6%

Credit Facilities, 4.6%

Extension Services, 24.7%

Extension Services, 24.7%

Co-operatives, 13.4%

Co-operatives, 13.4%

Whole Sale Traders, 4.4%

Whole Sale Traders, 4.4%

Others, 1.3%

Others, 1.3%

Communal farming was the most widely cited form of support mentioned by bomas in the boma questionnaire; as such, it performs an integral service for many of South Sudan’s agricultural producers. The community itself are the major providers of support to communal farming services (62.5%, n= 321). Other contributors play a more limited, although nonetheless crucial, role in supporting communal farming: the private sector provides 13.4% (n=69) of overall support, while NGOs contribute 12.8% (n=66). The following table details the organizations that currently provide support for communal farming across surveyed bomas.

Table 23: Support Providers to Communal Farming by Source Types (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source for Support % n=x

Government 3.9 20

FAO 6.2 32

NGO 12.8 66

Private Business 13.4 69

Diaspora 0.0 0

Community 62.5 321

Others 1.2 6

Total 100.0 514

Despite being largely self-reliant for the production of agricultural products, farmers often times do not possess the tools necessary to support their farming initiatives. Community representatives surveyed stated that most bomas lacked the requisite credit and financing infrastructure needed to support the cyclical nature of farming, often leaving farmers without the capital for seeds and other start up necessities. While the agricultural sector has witnessed some levels of private investment, to date, the majority has been located in Unity State with a smaller participation located in the Lakes State. The following figure shows the investment by private enterprises through the varying support channels by state as identified by community representatives (For data on the number of bomas whose crop production is supported by private enterprises by state, please refer to Table 7 in Annex II).


Figure 8: Actors Supporting Farming Programmes (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

3.9 6.2

12.8 13.4

0.0

62.5

1.2 11.7

18.2

38.9

12.2

0.0

19.0

0.0

4.4

6.6

14.7

23.5

0.0

50.0

0.7 8.5

2.1 4.3

51.1

0.0

34.0

0.0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Communal Farming

Agriculture extension services

Cooperatives

Wholesale Traders

Government FAO NGO Private Business Diaspora Community Others

Private companies have also provided intensive support to wholesale traders as this can be identified as an area with high return on investment. Outside of Unity State,21 this is the second highest type of private enterprise investment to communal farming support. For further information on types of support by provider and sector, please refer to Annex II, Section 3.1.

This lack of development in the agricultural sector has left an estimated one million people severely food insecure and 4.7 million moderately food insecure in 2012.22 Livelihood issues have only been exacerbated by the more than 2 million returning IDPs and refugees.23 South Sudan has received large amounts of food aid, and while there are those who believe this is causing dependency, others believe that the aid has been too erratic and inconsistent to form such a relationship.24 Deforestation is also harming those with agriculturally based livelihoods as studies have shown that damage to the environment has resulted in a decrease in precipitation throughout the region.25

2.4.2 liVeStOCkLivestock Production and SellingLivestock represents one of the most important livelihood mechanisms in South Sudan. According to FAO, 85% of South Sudanese households are either livestock producers or livestock keepers. In the survey area, community representative reported even greater levels of livestock ownership with 95.0% (n=855) designated as owning animals. Table 24 represents the community representatives’ response to the number of livestock owners by county classification.

21 City Capital, through stakes in Concorde Agriculture, has been the primary participant in agricultural investments, as it is scheduled to invest 767.9 million dollars on the development of 250,000 feddans of land in Bentiu, Unity State in the near future.22 Ding, Shannon, and Elise Tosun. (2012) “Little Pushes” for Agricultural Development in Greater Equatoria, Republic of South Sudan. HKS Harvard.23 Mohamed, Issam A.W (2011) Potentials of Irrigated Agriculture in Improvement of Food Security in Southern Sudan. Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 3, No. 68, April 2011.24 Maxwell, Daniel Kirsten Gelsdorf and Martina Santschi (2012) Livelihoods, basic services and social protection in South Sudan. ODI Discussion Papers.25 Salih, Abubakr AM, HeinerKörnich, and Michael Tjernström. (2012). Climate impact of deforestation over South Sudan in a regional climate model. International Journal of Climatology.


Table 24: Number of Bomas with Livestock ownership by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low return Middle return High return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

98.5 266 86.7 184 97.3 363 95.0 813

Currently, low return counties have the highest reported livestock ownership at 98.5% (n=266). High return counties have the next highest livestock ownership at 97.3% (n=363).

Of surveyed bomas, 89.2% (n=723) report selling livestock. Livestock sales as reported by community representatives are largely homogenous across county classification level, ranging from 91.2% (n=332) in high return counties to 85.8% (n=158) in medium return zones, and 88.9% (n=233) in low return counties. Table 25 represents community representatives’ response to the occurrence of sales of livestock by county classification.

Table 25: Number of Bomas which engage in Livestock Sale by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

88.9 233 85.8 158 91.2 332 89.2 723

However, part of the cause of disparities in livestock sale is the number of livestock markets available per county. Among all three county classifications, few bomas identified the presence of livestock markets. Such markets were most likely to be identified by community representatives in high return counties, with 23.2% (n=85) noting the existence of a livestock market. The existence of livestock markets is identified by county and classification in Table 26 on the following page.

The sale of livestock products by owners was noted as slightly lower than livestock themselves, with an 89.3% (n=723) of community representatives overall noting this occurrence. High return counties have the highest percentage of sales, at 91.2% (n=364).

Table 26: Number of Bomas engaging in the Sale of Livestock Products by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 88.9 233 85.9 158 91.2 332 89.3 723

No 11.1 29 14.1 26 8.8 32 10.7 87

Total 100.0 262 100.0 184 100.0 364 100.0 810

These figures are indicative of the direct correlation between rates of livestock ownership and the sale of livestock products. Further, these results again represent the presence of market accessibility among high return counties—typically in closure proximity to urban areas. For further information on products sold from livestock production, please refer to Table 15 in Annex II.


Aerial overview of cattle camp in Aweil Centre (Gianluca Loi 2012)


Table 27: Presence of Livestock Markets by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x



























WBEG Raja3 Middle return - 0 - - 100.0 0




Total 21.6 177 78.4 643 100.0 820





Problems Affecting Livestock HerdersFor those bomas where animal rearing takes place, the biggest challenges faced by producers remain animal diseases (26.4%, n=213) and water availability (20.9%, n=168). The availability of grazing land (16.1%, n=129), droughts and floods (12.6%, n=102), available market facilities (11.2%, n=90), and conflict (10.4%, n=84) are also significant issues confronted by animal producers in the surveyed areas as identified by community representatives.

Table 28: Problems Affecting Livestock owners by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Problem Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Grazing Land 17.3 176 16.2 113 15.1 189 16.1 478

Diseases 25.2 257 25.1 174 28.2 354 26.4 785

Water 19.5 199 21.4 149 21.6 272 20.9 620

Market Facilities 11.6 118 12.5 87 10.3 130 11.2 335

Conflict 11.7 119 13.3 93 7.8 98 10.4 310

Droughts/Floods 13.1 134 10.5 73 13.4 169 12.6 376

Other 1.3 14 0.8 6 3.3 42 2.1 62

Total 100.0 1,017 100.0 695 100.0 1,254 100.0 2,966

Cases 263 181 362 806

Problems pertaining to livestock are interrelated, and therefore it is necessary to establish the relationship of one factor to another. When various problems are correlated, the following relationships represented in Table 29 are determined.

Table 29: Correlation Matrix of Problems Affecting Livestock Herders...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Problem Grazing land Diseases Water Market facilities Conflict Drought

Grazing land 1

Diseases 0.28 1

Water 0.35 0.42 1

Market facilities 0.13 0.24 0.27 1

Conflict 0.25 0.22 0.23 0.38 1

Drought 0.3 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.1 1

This correlation matrix shows a relatively positive relationship between the presence of diseases and lack of adequate water supply (0.42). A strong correlation also exists between conflict and the availability of market facilities (0.38) while the availability of water resources and grazing land shows further correlation (0.35). Surprisingly, there was only a weak correlation between the presence of drought and conflict.

Furthermore, low return counties were determined to have the highest level of problems with regard to grazing land, with 64.7% (n=176) of bomas reporting this. The following table further illustrates the community representatives’ responses on the availability of grazing land as a problem affecting livestock herders by county classification.


Table 30: Grazing Land as Problem Affecting Livestock Herders by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 54.9 478 45.1 393 100.0 871




Low return and high return counties identified a relatively high occurrence of disease as a problem affecting livestock herders, with 93.9% (n=354) and 95.4% (n=257) of community representatives noting this, respectively. Table 31 illustrates the breakdown of disease as problem with regards to county and classification.


Table 31: diseases as a Problem Affecting Livestock Herders by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 90.1 785 9.9 86 100.0 871





The lack of tools, training, and knowledge has stunted the growth of the cattle industry, while failing to address issues of cattle disease.26 Livestock diseases represent a serious obstacle to those with livestock-based livelihoods in South Sudan due to the ease at which tick-borne diseases, such as East Coast fever, spread throughout the country.27

Availability of water presents an identified problem among all county classifications, with 73.2% (n=199) of low return community representatives citing this, 67.1% (n=149) in middle return counties, and 72.1% (n=272) among high return counties. Table 32 on the following page illustrates the responses of community representatives with regards to availability of water as a problem affecting livestock herders by county classification.

Water may also become an issue in the future as the Nile is shared by multiple countries, including Sudan, and specifics regarding hydro-politics between the two countries have yet to be decided.28 These issues must be dealt with in order for South Sudan to become resilient, and in the future, a robust economy.29

Conflict was not identified as being as pertinent a problem to livestock herders as those discussed in previous tables. Of the community representatives surveyed, 43.8% (n=119) of low return counties, 41.9% (n=93) of middle return counties, and 26.0% (n=98) of high return counties cited conflict as a significant problem affecting livestock herders. Interestingly, representatives from high return counties also noted the least amount of land related problems, showing a potential correlation between the availability of land as a resource and conflict. Conflict and its affect on livestock herders is further broken down in Table 33.

Of the community representatives surveyed, droughts and floods were not identified as being as critical a problem as water, grazing land, or disease, though it was noted as most significant among low return counties, with 49.3% (n=134) of boma representatives identifying this as a problem. 32.9% (n=73) from middle return counties, and 44.8% (n=169) of those from high return counties noted flooding and drought as a problem affecting livestock herders. Table 33 further shows the details of the effects of drought and floods on livestock herders as perceived by community representatives.

26 King, Alan and E. Mukasa-Mugerw (2002) Livestock Marketing in Southern Sudan (With Particular Reference to the Cattle Trade between Southern Sudan and Uganda) Pan African Program for Control of Epizootics.27 Malak, AK, and others (2012). Prevalence of livestock diseases and their impact on livelihoods in Central Equatoria State, Southern Sudan, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Volume 104, Issues 3–4, 1 May 2012, 216-223.28 Salman, Salman. MA. (2011). The new state of South Sudan and the hydro-politics of the Nile Basin. Water International, 36(2), 154-166.29 Pain, Adam, and Simon Levine. (2012) A conceptual analysis of livelihoods and resilience: addressing the ‘insecurity of agency’. ODI.


Table 32: Water as a Problem Affecting Livestock Herders by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 71.2 620 28.8 251 100.0 871





Table 33: Conflict as a Problem Affecting Livestock Herders by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 35.6 310 64.4 561 100.0 871





Table 34: droughts and Floods as Problems Affecting Livestock Herders by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 43.2 376 56.8 495 100.0 871 Subtotal Low return 49.3 134 50.7 138 100.0 272




Support for Livestock ProductionAs disease presents the most common issue faced by animal producers, farmers utilize veterinary services as their primary form of support, with 58.5% of community representative noting this response when surveyed. Cooperatives (12.4%, n=70) and slaughterhouses (9.8%, n=55) also play significant support roles according to respondents. The following table shows the types of support available for livestock owners. (For a more detailed breakdown of support for each sector, please refer to Section 3.2.1 in Annex II).

Table 35: Support for Livestock owners by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Support % n=x

Credit Facilities 4.6 26

Slaughterhouse 9.8 55

Veterinary Services 58.5 330

Cross Breeding 4.8 27

Cooperatives 12.4 70

Export Markets 5.0 28

Whole Sale Traders 4.4 25

Support, Other 0.5 3

Total 100.0 564

Veterinary support primarily comes from UN agencies and NGOs, with 37.4% (n=127) of community representatives noting this as the case. Other sources of veterinary care come from the private businesses (30.6%, n=104) and the MoA (28.5%, n=97). Support providers of veterinary care are broken down by state by the type of provider in Table 36.

Table 36: Providers of Veterinary Support by State (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Support Provider CEQ EEQ LAK NBEG UNI WAR WBEG WEQ Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=xMoARF 38.8 19 87.5 7 28.3 15 7.1 6 35.3 24 21.3 13 73.3 11 100.0 2 28.5 97UN/FAO/NGOs 18.4 9 12.5 1 52.8 28 32.1 27 32.4 22 59.0 36 26.7 4 0.0 0 37.4 127

Private Business 40.8 20 0.0 0 18.9 10 60.7 51 20.6 14 14.8 9 0.0 0 0.0 0 30.6 104

Diaspora 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0Others 2.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 11.8 8 4.9 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.5 12Total 100.0 49 100.0 8 100.0 53 100.0 84 100.0 68 100.0 61 100.0 15 100.0 2 100.0 340Cases 46 8 45 78 57 49 15 2 300


2.4.3 FISHINGProduction and SaleIn the surveyed area, over half of bomas were reported as engaging in fishing. High return counties have the highest number of bomas engaged in fishing (60.2%. n=221), followed by low (50.8%, n=129) and middle (46.3%, n=97) return counties, most likely due to the geographical availability of fishable waters.

Table 37: existence of Fisheries by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Fisheries Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 50.8 129 46.6 97 60.2 221 53.9 447

No 49.2 125 53.4 111 39.8 146 46.0 382

Total 100.0 254 100.0 208 100.0 367 100.0 829

Counties of high return also have the highest percentages of those selling fish products, as demonstrated in the following table.

Table 38: Sale of Fish Products by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Fish Products Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 80.4 107 82.5 85 89.1 197 85.1 389

No 19.5 26 17.4 18 10.8 24 14.8 68

Total 100.0 133 100.0 103 100.0 221 100.0 457

Problems Affecting Fisheries ProductionFor fishermen, the most significant constraint is lack of inputs, as listed by 31.4% (n=140) of community representatives. This includes supplies necessary to fish or build and maintain a fish pond, as well as feed, nets, baskets, and hooks. Market facilities to sell fish products (20.1%, n=89), droughts and floods (19.5%, n=87), adequate storage facilities (17.1%, n=76), and conflict (10.4%, n=46) are also significant challenges that fishermen confront. Table 39 illustrates the problems affecting fish production by county classification.

Table 39: Problems Affecting Fisherman by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Problem Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Lack of Inputs 29.4 111 31.5 88 32.4 218 31.4 417

Droughts/Floods 22.2 84 16.1 45 19.3 130 19.5 259

Storage Facility 14.8 56 14.7 41 19.4 131 17.1 228

Market Facility 18.5 70 21.1 59 20.5 138 20.1 267

Conflict 13.7 52 14.3 40 6.9 47 10.4 139

Other 1.1 4 2.1 6 1.1 8 1.3 18

Total 100.0 377 100.0 279 100.0 672 100.0 1,328

Cases 120 99 226 445


Community representatives cited that the main reasons for the lack of fishery inputs were that they were not locally available (33.9%, n=275), there was a lack of training (29.7%, n=241), and the cost of inputs was too high (27.2%, n=221). The following table presents the reasons for a lack of inputs by county classification as identi-fied by community representatives. For further information regarding lack of inputs and market accessibility issues for fisheries by state, please refer to Section 3.3 in Annex II.

Table 40: Reasons for Lack of Inputs into Fisheries Production by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reason Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

High cost 17.9 39 26.3 39 32.1 143 27.2 221

Locally Not Available 37.3 81 28.3 42 34.1 152 33.9 275

Labor 8.7 19 7.4 11 5.3 24 6.6 54

Training 33.6 73 34.4 51 26.2 117 29.7 241

Other 2.3 5 3.3 5 2.1 9 2.3 19

Total 100.0 217 100.0 148 100.0 445 100.0 810

Cases 112 85 220 417

Support Available for Fisheries ProductionOf the support programs available for fishermen the majority involves the provision of fishing gear, with 70.9% (n=168) of community representatives citing such programming. A breakdown of the support available is detailed in Table 41.

Table 41: Support Available to Fishermen by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Support Available % n=x

Cold Storage Rooms 8.0 19

Fishing Gear 70.9 168

Credit Facility 2.5 6

Cooperatives 5.9 14

Wholesale Traders 8.9 21

Other providers 3.8 9

Total 100.0 237

Of the providers of fishing gear, the primary supporters are private businesses, with 61.3% (n=215) of community representatives noting this as the main source of support. NGOs were the next most recognized provider, with 20.8% (n=73). The following table shows the providers of fishing gears by type.


Table 42: Providers of Fishing Gear by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Support Available % n=x

Government 6.6 23

FAO 8.3 29

NGO 20.8 73

Private Business 61.3 215

Diaspora 0.0 0

Others 3.1 11

Total 100.0 351

2.5 Food SeCurITy& CoPIng MeCHAnISMS

2.5.1 Food SeCuRITyDespite the agricultural potential of the country, food security still remains an ongoing concern seasonally, if not year round. All community representatives in low return counties (n=198) stated that there are food scarcities, in addition to 99.4% (n=168) of middle return counties and 95.2% (n=297) of high return counties stating the same response. Table 43 breaks down food scarcities by county.

Due to the pervasiveness of food security concerns across all counties, it is therefore unsurprising that hunger, classified within the survey as an external threat, was identified as being highly prevalent in surveyed counties. This was most obvious in high return counties, where 83.8% (n=316) of community representatives acknowl-edged the existence of hunger. A high proportion (82.4%, n=224) of low return counties also noted widespread hunger, as well as 79.3% (n=176) of community representatives from middle return counties. Table 44 exem-plifies the number of community representatives that recognized the prevalence of hunger in their respective bomas. The widespread presence of hunger in most counties should not only be treated as a food security con-cern, but as a potential threat and source of conflict. For further information on responses to hunger by county classification, please refer to Table 58 in Annex II.


Table 43: Reported Instances of Food Security Concerns by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

State County Classification Yes No Total% n=x % n=x % n=x

CEQ Kajo-Keji Low return 100.0 21 0.0 0 100.0 21CEQ Lainya Middle return 100.0 12 0.0 0 100.0 12CEQ Morobo High return 100.0 10 0.0 0 100.0 10CEQ Yei Low return 100.0 19 0.0 0 100.0 19EEQ Ikotos Middle return 95.7 22 4.3 1 100.0 23EEQ Torit Low return 100.0 25 0.0 0 100.0 25LAK Rumbek Centre Middle return 100.0 16 0.0 0 100.0 16LAK Rumbek East Middle return 100.0 11 0.0 0 100.0 11LAK Yirol West Middle return 100.0 23 0.0 0 100.0 23LAK Yirol East High return 100.0 18 0.0 0 100.0 18NBEG Aweil Centre High return 100.0 22 0.0 0 100.0 22NBEG Aweil East High return 100.0 62 0.0 0 100.0 62NBEG Aweil North High return 90.9 20 9.1 2 100.0 22NBEG Aweil South High return 90.0 18 10.0 2 100.0 20NBEG Aweil West High return 100.0 23 0.0 0 100.0 23UNI Guit Low return 100.0 13 0.0 0 100.0 13UNI Koch High return 97.9 46 2.1 1 100.0 47UNI Leer High return 81.8 36 18.2 8 100.0 44UNI Mayiendit Middle return 100.0 24 0.0 0 100.0 24UNI Panyijar Low return 100.0 33 0.0 0 100.0 33UNI Rubkona High return 95.5 42 4.5 2 100.0 44WAR Gogrial East Low return 100.0 10 0.0 0 100.0 10WAR Gogrial West Low return 100.0 21 0.0 0 100.0 21WAR Tonj North Low return 100.0 26 0.0 0 100.0 26WAR Twic Low return 100.0 17 0.0 0 100.0 17WBEG Jur River Middle return 100.0 26 0.0 0 100.0 26WBEG Raja Middle return 100.0 7 0.0 0 100.0 7WBEG Wau Middle return 100.0 17 0.0 0 100.0 17WEQ Maridi Low return 100.0 13 0.0 0 100.0 13WEQ Mundri West Middle return 100.0 10 0.0 0 100.0 10Total 97.6 663 2.4 16 100.0 679 Subtotal Low return 100.0 198 0.0 0 100.0 198Subtotal Middle return 99.4 168 0.6 1 100.0 169Subtotal High return 95.2 297 4.8 15 100.0 312


Table 44: Reported Cases of Hunger by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 82.2 716 17.8 155 100.0 871





2.5.2 CoPING MeCHANISMSThe primary coping mechanisms for food scarcity as expressed by community representatives was to forage fruits and vegetables (29.5%, n=551) or to reduce the intake of meals (27.3%, n=509).Other significant coping strategies included looking to extended family for assistance (8.4%, n=157), cash benefits (7.4%, n=138) and temporary migration (7.4%, n=135).The following table acknowledges the identified coping mechanisms in response to food scarcity.

Table 45: Coping Strategies employed in Response to Food Scarcity by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Coping Mechanism % n=x

Loans 6.8 127

Reduced Meals 27.3 509

Cash Benefits 7.4 138

Forage Fruit And Vegetables 29.5 551

Temporary Migration 7.2 135

Extended Family Support 8.4 157

Food Aid 6.3 118

Other 7.0 132

Total 100.0 1,867

Survey data indicates that community representatives noted people altering their food consumption habits to align with seasonal availabilities. For example, in the rainy season, 61.6% (n=501) of community representatives reported vegetables were readily available in their local markets and 60.6% (n=439) could acquire beans. In the dry season, vegetables were available to only 25.5% (n=191) of respondents, while 26.0% (n=195) could acquire beans. Meat held an inverse relationship, as only 15.7% (n=128) could locate game meat and 77.6% (n=632) livestock meat in the rainy season; in the dry season 22.0% (n=165) reported the availability of game meat and livestock meat availability rose to 80.5% (n=604). The increase in availability of meat during the dry season most likely indicates that households are depleting assets (livestock) as a coping mechanism in addition to the aforementioned strategies. The following table represents the availability of food types by season as identified by community representatives from surveyed bomas.

Table 46: Food Types Available by Type and Season (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Food Type Food Availability Dry Season availability Rainy Season Availability

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Beans 66.7 576 26.0 195 60.6 493

Vegetables 65.6 566 25.5 191 61.6 501

Fruits 56.0 483 39.7 298 45.2 368

Fish 57.5 496 45.0 338 46.2 376

Game Meat 22.3 192 22.0 165 15.7 128

Chicken Fowl 61.9 534 58.9 442 56.0 456

Livestock Meat 84.2 727 80.5 604 77.6 632

Livestock Milk 78.5 677 57.6 432 71.6 583

Other 3.2 28 1.5 11 2.3 19


2.6 oTHer MeAnS And SourCeS oF InCoMe

Though farming, animal husbandry, and fishing are the main means of livelihood as noted by community representatives, other income generating activities do occur among the counties surveyed. The following table shows other means and sources of incomes across the bomas surveyed.

Table 47: other Means of Income by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)

Means of Income % n=x

Employment 16.4 169

Pension 4.5 46

Income Generating Activities 62.0 640

Remittance 7.3 75

Others 10.0 103

Total 100.0 1033

Unspecified income generating activities make up the primary means of income generation, with 62.0% (n=640) of community representatives noting this form of livelihood. Salaried employment is the second highest response, with 16.4% (n=169) citing this as a means of income.

Woman selling woven mats at Adok Port, Leer County (Gianluca Loi 2012).


3. WATer, SAnITATIon & HygIene

When asked about the primary source of water among boma residents, 35.3% (n=663) of community representatives noted a borehole as the primary source. Besides boreholes, the most commonly utilized source of water are natural, with 23.0% (n=433) of community representatives stating that water from streams serve the daily needs of residents, and another 19.6% (n=368) collecting water from rivers. In the survey area, only 1.5% (n=28) of community representatives noted that water is taken from a tap. The following table illustrates primary water sources by county classification.

Table 48: Water Source by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Water Source Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

River 21.0 121 16.6 82 20.4 165 19.6 368

Stream 27.3 157 23.2 115 19.9 161 23.0 433

Spring 3.1 18 4.9 24 4.5 36 4.2 78

Hom4 0.9 5 3.8 19 3.6 29 2.8 53

Borehole 36.4 209 37.8 187 33.0 267 35.3 663

Hafir 3.7 21 3.0 15 8.7 70 5.6 106

Tap 1.2 7 2.2 11 1.2 10 1.5 28

Tanker 1.0 6 1.2 6 1.0 8 1.0 20

Lake or Pond 2.6 15 3.4 6 3.6 8 3.3 61

Other 2.8 16 3.8 19 4.2 34 3.7 69

Total 100.0 575 100.0 495 100.0 809 100.0 1,879

Generally, a low number of community representatives noted water as being accessible to all among their communities. Of high returnee counties, 28.4% (n=105) representatives stated water as accessible to all; 24.1% (n=52) of those in middle returnee counties, and 17.7% (n=47) acknowledged the accessibility of water. The following table shows the accessibility of water to all households as identified by community representatives by county.


Table 49: universal Access to Water Sources Within Community by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 24.0 204 76.0 647 100.0 851




Community representatives noted that in 72.1% of bomas (n=612), residents do not pay fees to access water. For tabulated data, please see Table 31 in Annex.


Figure 9: Fees Required to Access Water (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Yes, 27.9%

No, 72.1%

For those using rivers, streams, and boreholes, water availability is not always guaranteed. Only 57.8% (n=226) of bomas taking water from rivers, 13.3% (n=53) using streams, and 38.4% (n=289) from boreholes reported water accessibility throughout the year. Community representatives stated that streams are seasonally available in 56.9% (n=226) of bomas, while 34.8% (n=262) of borehole users described the available water as insufficient. Overall survey data exemplifies that many are water insecure for at least part of the year.

Table 50: Water Accessibility by Water Source and degree (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Accessibility of Water River Stream Borehole

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Accessible throughout the Year 57.8 226 13.3 53 38.4 289

Seasonal 19.4 76 56.9 226 6.5 49

Inaccessible due to insecurity 1.2 5 3.2 13 1.7 13

Insufficient 9.2 36 13.3 53 34.8 262

Accessible to some groups 12.2 48 13.1 52 18.3 138

Total 100.0 391 100.0 397 100.0 751

Two primary factors were noted as inhibiting access to water, with 41.5% (n=368) of community representatives reporting that the available water is not sufficient to meet the needs of their respective bomas. Long distances to the water sources also accounted for 35.2% (n=312) of community representatives as a reason for water inaccessibility. Table 51 exemplifies the primary reasons cited for water inaccessibility.

Table 51: Reasons for Water Inaccessibility (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reason % n=x

Distance 35.2 312

Insecurity 4.4 39

Quality of Water 16.1 143

Quantity of Water 41.5 368

Other 2.7 24

Total 100.0 886


3.1 SeASonAL MIgrATIon And WATer

Lack of water, especially for keeping livestock, often leads to a seasonal migration as herders have to move to find adequate water supply for their cattle. Community representatives from low return counties noted the highest occurrence of seasonal migrations, with 50.2% (n=129) citing their incidence. Half (49.1%, n=182) of those from high return counties indicated seasonal migrations as occurring, and 37.9% (n=81) in middle return counties. The following table breaks down seasonal migration by county as noted by community representatives.

Table 52: Seasonal Migration by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 46.6 392 53.4 450 100.0 842





Water and grazing land are the primary causes for migration, with 42.8% (n=299) and 36.3% (n=253) of community representatives citing these reasons, respectively. The following table illustrates the primary reasons for choosing to make a seasonal migration.

Villagers walk past a tukul in Babuong payam in Mayendit County (Gianclua Loi 2012).

Table 53: Reasons for Choosing Seasonal Migratory Route for Water Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reason % n=x

Water 42.8 299

Grazing 36.3 253

Security 6.3 44

Access 8.9 62

Other 5.7 40

Total 100.0 698

Almost three quarters (69.7; n=280) of community representatives identified youth as primary members of the household practicing seasonal migration. In 27.9% (n=112) cases, the whole household participated. Table 54 shows the members of the household partaking in seasonal migrations, but for further information on persons undertaking seasonal migration by county classification please see Section 5.1.2 in Annex II).

Table 54: Members engaging in Seasonal Migration by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type % n=x

Whole Household 27.9 112

Youth Male and Female Members 69.7 280

Others 2.5 10

Total 100.0 402


Middle return counties had the highest identified rates of conflict along migratory routes for access to water, with 47.9% (n=35) of community representatives noting the occurrence. In low return counties, 24.8% (n=30) identified conflict as occurring, and 23.7% (n=42) in high return counties. Table 54 shows conflict on migratory routes due to competition for water by county classification.

Table 55: existence of Conflict on Migratory Route due to Competition for Water by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x

























WEQ Raja Middle return 14.3 1 85.7 6 100.0 7


Total 28.8 107 71.2 264 100.0 371





Rivers are the primary source of water utilized on migratory routes, with 28.1% (n=195) of community representatives citing this response. One fifth (20.9%, n=145) utilize streams on migratory routes, and 16.0% (n=111) are able to utilize a well. Table 56 represents the sources of water found and used along migratory routes.

Table 56: Sources of Water on Migratory Route by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Water Source % n=x

River 28.1 195

Stream 20.9 145

Hafir 10.1 70

Tap 0.3 2

Hand Pump 12.5 87

Well 16.0 111

Hom 7.6 53

Other 4.5 31

Total 100.0 694

3.2 LoCAL ConFLICT over WATer

Water insecurity leads to water conflict at the boma level according to 49.7% (n=423) of community representatives. Low return counties reported the highest amounts of boma level conflict at 59.7 (n=157), while high return counties reported the fewest number of water related disputes at 41.7% (n=154) of bomas. Low return counties have the lowest levels of accessibility to water and are reported to have the most conflict over water; high return counties have the highest accessibility of water to all and the lowest number of reported local conflicts over water. This leans towards the indication of a causal relationship between access to water and conflict on the local level. The following table shows conflict within bomas over water by county type, as cited by community representatives.

Table 57: Conflict within the Boma due to Water (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Conflicts Low return Middle return High return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 59.7 157 51.3 112 41.7 154 49.7 423No 40.3 106 48.6 106 58.2 215 50.2 427Total 100.0 263 100.0 218 100.0 369 100.0 850

The occurrence of water conflict varies greatly across state lines, with the highest percentage of boma level water disputes identified as occurring in Lakes State (75.5%, n=68), Central Equatoria State (65.0%, n= 54) and Warrap State (64.4%, n=67). Western Bahr el Ghazal has the fewest levels of reported water disputes at 16.1% (n=10). The following table shows the occurrence of conflict within bomas according to community representatives (for further details on conflict issues on migratory routes due to competition for water, please refer to Section 5.1.2 of Annex II).


Table 58: Conflict over Water within Bomas by State (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

CEQ EEQ LAK NBEG UNI WRP WBEG WEQ Total


Yes 65.1 54 47.54 29 75.56 68 40.0 72 43.75 105 64.42 67 16.13 10 60.0 18 49.76 423

No 34.9 29 52.46 32 24.44 22 60.0 108 56.25 135 35.58 37 83.87 52 40.0 12 50.24 427

Total 100.0 83 100.0 61 100.0 90 100.0 180 100.0 240 100.0 104 100.0 62 100.0 30 100.0 850

While it is difficult to ascertain the reasons behind the trends in water conflict by state, its occurrence is perhaps less related to personal consumption of water and more likely related to water for cattle, as higher amounts of livestock ownership as well as lack of water availability for livestock rearing were reported in these areas. Lakes State, areas of northern Central Equatoria State, and Warrap State also contain mixed tribal populations that have historically disputed water points for cattle.

3.3 SAnITATIon

Of those community representatives surveyed, 53.1% (n=383) stated that bomas had received no sanitation and hygiene education. Of those identified as using latrines, 84.8% (n=138) have had sanitation and hygiene education, indicating a relationship between education and the use of latrines. This data is exemplified in Table 59.

Table 59: Sanitation and Hygiene education in Previous 2 years and use of Latrines (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

People Use Latrines

Sanitation and Hygiene Education in Previous Two Years Yes No Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 84.8 117 38.0 222 47.0 339

No 15.2 21 62.0 362 53.1 383

Total 100 138 100 584 100 722

The majority of community representatives noted the use of simple household pit latrines 58.7% (n=159) and simple public pit latrines 20.7% (n=56), in the case that a latrine is utilized. In counties of low return, respondents used public ventilated pit latrines in 15.7% (n=17) on occasion as opposed to those in high return counties where the ventilated pit latrine is utilized in only 5.9% (n=4) of bomas. The following table shows the types of pit latrines used by country classification among bomas according to community representatives.


Table 60: Latrine Types utilized by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Latrine Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Public Latrine (PL), Simple Pit 22.2 24 22.1 21 16.2 11 20.7 56

Public Latrine (PL), Ventilated Pit 15.7 17 10.5 10 5.9 4 11.4 31

Public Latrine (PL), Flush Toilet 2.8 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.1 3

Public Latrine (PL), Other 0.9 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.4 1

Household Latrine (HHL) Simple Pit 54.6 59 61.1 58 61.8 42 58.6 159

Household Latrine (HHL), Ventilated Pit 3.7 4 6.3 6 13.2 9 7.0 19

Household Latrine (HHL), Flush Toilet 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.5 1 0.4 1

Household Latrine (HHL), Other 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.5 1 0.4 1

Total 100.0 108 100.0 95 100.0 68 100.0 271

Cases 75 74 49 198

Among recipients of awareness raising activities, the most common topic discussed was clean drinking water, with 30.2% (n=343) of community representatives noting this topic. Other popular topics were hand washing (28.5%, n=324) and clean hygiene (27.4%, n=312). Section 5.2.1 in the Annex outlines further data concerning use of latrines.

Table 61: Sanitation and Hygiene education Topics Covered in Awareness Raising Activities by Topic (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Topic % n=x

Hand Washing 28.5 324

Clean Drinking Water 30.2 343

Clean Hygiene 27.4 312

Garbage Disposal 13.5 153

Others 0.4 5

Total 100.0 1137


4. HeALTH

Increasing availability and access to the health care system in South Sudan has proved to be a challenging task for government organizations and the international community. According to the Ministry of Health (MoH), only 25% of the South Sudan population has regular access to health facilities.1 Despite having a four-tier health services structure, South Sudan’s health facilities do not provide official referrals, placing the decision to seek specialized care to the discretion of the patient.

The limited accessibility to health care is directly affected by the lack of infrastructure and poor state of the existing health facilities. There is a critical shortage of qualified medical practitioners. According to WHO and the MoH, there are a total of 189 physicians in South Sudan—or one doctor for every 39,088 persons. Central Equatoria State accounts for the highest concentration of physicians in South Sudan (51%), while Western Equatoria and Jonglei do not possess any qualified South Sudanese physicians.2

The South Sudan health care system is characterized by four distinct types of facilities–Primary Health Care Units, Primary Health Care Centres , County and State Hospitals (combined together henceforth as Hospitals), and Teaching Hospitals (which were not featured in the survey as they are located in state capitals). These services are distinguished by the differing levels of care and staff available to patients in each. Primary Health Care Units (PHCU) are the most common health facilities and offer basic, preventative, promotive, and curative services. They are intended to serve a population of 15,000 and are located in bomas.3

Primary Health Care Centres (PHCC) are the direct level of referral from PHCUs; they provide extended services to the PHCUs, and the survey found that 40.7% (n=35) of facilities possess diagnostic laboratory services, and 57.0% (n=49) provide maternity and inpatient care. They are intended to serve a population of 50,000 and are usually situated in payams except in some urban cases where they are also located in bomas.4

County hospitals provide the most advanced medical treatments, well beyond the capacity of PHCUs and PHCCs. They are located at county administrative headquarters and PHCC cases are referred to this level where secondary health care is also available. Of surveyed hospitals, 93.3% (n=14) provide inpatient facilities, 80.0% (n=12) have outpatient and laboratory facilities; while 66.7% (n=10) possess maternity wards.

The distribution of health care facilities is highly variable by county. Of the 30 counties where the VAS surveyed health facilities, 18 do not possess hospitals, two do not possess PHCCs, and another two do not have PHCUs, with Guit County in Unity State void of any government health facilities. The types of facility by county and classification are detailed in Table 62:

1 Ministry of Health: Health Sector Development Plan 2011 - 2015.2 South Sudan Medical Journal (2012).3 Republic of South Sudan, Ministry of Health: Health Sector Development Plan 2012-2016 (2012), pp. 8.4 Ibid.


Table 62: Numbers and Types of Health Facilities by County (Source: Health Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

State County Classification Hospitals PHCC PHCU Others Total

CEQ Kajo-Keji Low return 1 4 40 0 45

CEQ Lainya Middle return 0 3 17 0 20

CEQ Morobo High return 0 5 9 0 14

CEQ Yei Low return 1 7 23 0 31

EEQ Ikotos Middle return 1 5 18 0 24

EEQ Torit Low return 0 4 17 0 21

LAK Rumbek Centre Middle return 1 2 5 0 8

LAK Rumbek East Middle return 1 6 5 0 12

LAK Yirol West Middle return 2 3 5 0 10

LAK Yirol East High return 1 1 2 0 4

NBEG Aweil Centre High return 0 2 6 0 8

NBEG Aweil East High return 1 2 20 0 23

NBEG Aweil North High return 0 1 18 0 19

NBEG Aweil South High return 0 2 9 0 11

NBEG Aweil West High return 0 2 24 0 26

UNI Guit Low return 0 0 0 0 0

UNI Koch High return 1 1 6 1 9

UNI Leer High return 1 2 3 3 9

UNI Mayiendit Middle return 0 2 6 2 10

UNI Panyijar Low return 0 0 0 0 0

UNI Rubkona High return 0 2 0 0 2

WAR Gogrial East Low return 0 2 8 0 10

WAR Gogrial West Low return 0 3 13 0 16

WAR Tonj North Low return 2 4 10 0 16

WAR Twic Low return 0 4 11 0 15

WBEG Jur River Middle return 0 6 17 0 23

WBEG Raja Middle return 1 1 10 0 12

WBEG Wau Middle return 0 5 15 0 20

WEQ Maridi Low return 1 5 17 0 23

WEQ Mundri West Middle return 0 2 14 0 16

Total 15 88 348 6 457

Subtotal Low return 5 33 139 0 177

Subtotal Middle return 6 35 112 2 155

Subtotal High return 4 20 97 4 125

Health facilities operate in several different types of structures across the country. Most PHCUs are housed in permanent buildings (53.9%, n=186), as well as in temporary shade/tukuls (24.1%, n=83) and even open air settings (9.7%, n=34)—depending on the locale. Both hospitals (71.4%, n=11) and PHCCs (71.7%, n=62) are primarily located in permanent structures, with additional units mainly located in semi-permanent buildings—with 23.8% (n=4) and 12.7% (n=11) of facilities noted as such, respectively. As expected, facility quality increases by health unit type with hospitals having the most permanent structures. For more information regarding health facility specifics, please see Table 25 in Annex II.


Table 63: Health Facility Structures by Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Structure Hospital PHCC PHCU

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Permanent Building 71.4 15 71.7 73 53.9 226

Semi-Permanent 23.8 5 12.7 13 11.6 49

Temporary Shade/Tukul 4.7 1 6.8 7 24.1 101

Open Air 0.0 0 7.8 8 9.7 41

Other Heath facility Structure 0.0 0 0.9 1 0.4 2

Total 100.0 21 100.0 102 100.0 419

Cases 15 15 86 86 345 345

Outpatient services are the most common services offered across all types of facilities, with 80.0% (n=12) of hospitals providing them, 98.8% (n=85) of PHCCs and 94.3% (n=316) of PHCUs. Inpatient services are primarily offered at hospitals, with 93.3% (n=14) of facilities having such services, as well as laboratory services and health education—with 80.0% (n=12) and 86.7% (n=13) offered at hospitals respectively. The following table represents health services offered by facility type.

Table 64: Health Facility Services offered by Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Hospital PHCC PHCU

Services Offered (Yes) (Yes) (Yes)

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Outpatient 80.0 12 98.8 85 94.3 316

Inpatient 93.3 14 57.0 49 10.2 34

Maternity Ward 66.7 10 57.0 49 23.6 79

Laboratory 80.0 12 40.7 35 4.5 15

Health Education 86.7 13 64.0 55 57.6 193

Feeding Centre 20.0 3 15.1 13 4.8 16

Psycho-Social Support 26.7 4 22.1 19 15.5 52

Other 0.0 0 1.2 1 0.9 3

Satisfaction with the condition of available health facilitates was largely absent, as 81.2% (n=307) of all facilities were found to have unsatisfactory conditions. Bomas in middle return counties expressed a markedly higher satisfaction level with facilities (29.1%, n=37) as compared to low (14.1, n=20) and high (12.7%, n=14) return zones. Table 65 details satisfaction levels among health facilities by county classification.

Table 65: Satisfaction Level of Health Facilities in Bomas by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Facilities Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Satisfactory 14.1 20 29.1 37 12.7 14 18.8 71

Unsatisfactory 85.8 121 70.9 90 87.3 96 81.2 307

Total 100.0 141 100.0 127 100.0 110 100.0 378


4.1 HeALTH CAre ServICeS

4.1.1 ACCeSSIBILITyHigh returnee counties have the fewest health facilities per person with a mean average of 14,111 persons per facility. Middle return counties tend to be under less population stress averaging a significantly lower person per facility ratio of 1 health unit per 8,087 residents, with an uptick of 9,535 persons per health facility in counties of low return. All of these averages fall within the Basic Package of Health Services (BPHS) numbers recommended by the GRSS, which states that a PHCU should not serve more than 15,000 persons. Table 66 shows the mean average intake of facilities from 2009 to 2011 by county.

Table 66: Mean Average Intake (2009-2011) as reported by Health Facility Type and County (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

State County Classification Hospitals PHCC PHCU OthersCEQ Kajo-Keji Low return 10,134 72,275 10,207 -CEQ Lainya Middle return - 11,822 7,233 -CEQ Morobo High return - 18,374 8,292 -CEQ Yei Low return 130,455 19,126 5,463 -EEQ Ikotos Middle return 39,964 11,272 4,903 -EEQ Torit Low return - 11,392 16,455 -LAK Rumbek Centre Middle return 91,150 7,406 43,013 -LAK Rumbek East Middle return 4,424 15,598 7,343 -LAK Yirol West Middle return 159,858 1,352 30,534 -LAK Yirol East High return 26,255 15,341 9,361 -NBEG Aweil Centre High return - 19,420 3,837 -NBEG Aweil East High return 268,639 16,290 13,227 -NBEG Aweil North High return - 47,254 14,106 -NBEG Aweil South High return - 54,278 15,345 -NBEG Aweil West High return - 31,636 15,192 -UNI Koch High return 2,723 64,104 2,094 400UNI Leer High return 48,143 14,584 19,200 12,551UNI Mayiendit Middle return - 5,495 12,684 -UNI Rubkona High return - 8,596 - -WAR Gogrial East Low return - 24,996 10,349 -WAR Gogrial West Low return - 25,354 11,402 -WAR Tonj North Low return 187 11,296 7,051 -WAR Twic Low return - 60,339 12,535 -WBEG Jur River Middle return - 16,979 17,255 -WBEG Raja Middle return 7,317 - 2,548 -WBEG Wau Middle return - 21,415 3,229 -WEQ Maridi Low return 63,495 12,157 9,014 -WEQ Mundri West Middle return - 10,953 8,312 -Total 65,596 23,300 11,859 6,476

Subtotal Low return 51,068 29,617 10,309 -Subtotal Middle return 60,542 11,366 13,705 -Subtotal High return 86,440 28,988 11,184 6,476


Contributing to the low health unit per person ratios, counties of high return possessed the fewest number of PHCUs (n=97), PHCCs (n=20), and hospitals (n=4). With the fewest health facilities, counties of high return tend to be the least able to cope with their increasing populations.

Table 67: Number of Health Facilities by County Classification (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Facility Low return Medium return High return

Hospitals 5 6 4

Primary Health Care Centre 33 35 20

Primary Health Care Unit 139 112 97

Not all bomas possess health care facilities, as 54.4% (n=464) of reporting bomas do not have a health facility. In counties of high return, 69.3% (n=256) of reporting bomas noted the existence of no health care facilities as compared to 40.5% (n=88) and 45.1% (n=120) in middle and low return counties. This again suggests that those areas receiving the highest levels of returnees are also those most ill prepared to accommodate the additional health care needs associated with substantial increases in population size.

Table 68: Presence of Health Facility in Bomas by County Classification (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Facility Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 54.8 146 59.4 129 30.6 113 45.5 388

No 45.1 120 40.5 88 69.3 256 54.4 464

Total 100.0 266 100.0 217 100.0 369 100.0 852

For residents of many bomas, the logistics of medical treatment is quite difficult, and in times of emergency, may often be impossible. In counties of medium and high return that are void of health facilities, mean average travel times to the nearest health unit average 3.1 hours. In low return counties, those bomas without access to health facilities average an even longer mean travel time of 3.6 hours, with respondents citing walking as the most common means of getting to health facilities (73.6%, n=349). For a further breakdown on the means people from bomas where health facilities are absent use to get to health facilities, please refer to Table 24 in Annex II.

Table 69: Mean Average distance to Closest Health Facility in Bomas without a Facility (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low Return Medium Return High Return

Mean Average Distance to Closest Health Facility 3.6 Hours 3.1 Hours 3.1 Hours

In bomas lacking health facilities, 33.6% (n= 260) of respondents in bomas surveyed reported seeking treatment from other local sources as opposed to traveling to their nearest health unit. Herbalists (9.1%, n=71), traditional healers (8.2%, n=64), and birth attendants (9.5%, n=74) were the primary forms of local care sought by such individuals. It appears that a large portion of the population does not obtain the recommended BPHS care services and does not obtain the support of qualified health care practitioners.


Table 70: Health Services Sought in Bomas without Health Facilities by Type (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type % n=x

Health facility in Next Boma 31.9 247

Health Services in Next Town 34.5 267

Herbalist 9.1 71

Elders 2.5 20

Boma Traditional Healer 8.2 64

Traditional Birth Attendant 9.5 74

Religious Leaders 3.2 25

Others 0.6 5

Total 100.0 773

South Sudan’s health facilities face significant staffing shortages at all levels. Only 0.5% (n=4) of reporting PHCUs have a resident doctor. Medical assistants at PHCUs are also largely absent with only 4.2% (n=35) reporting one in-house.

PHCCs possess more medical assistants (10.3%, n=39), nurses (15.1%, n=101) and laboratory assistants (8.4%, n=32) as compared to PHCUs. The shortage of doctors was still apparent at the PHCCs with only 1.1% (n=4) reporting a doctor present.

Doctors are most common at the hospital level, as 10.2% (n=9) of facilities reported employing a doctor. Additionally, hospitals employed greater percentages of medical assistants (15.9%, n=14) and laboratory assistants (14.7%, n=13) than other health units surveyed. Interestingly, midwives (10.2%, n=9) and traditional birth assistants (6.8%, n=6) were reported at their lowest levels in hospitals. This would seemingly imply that doctors and medical assistants in hospitals more often perform natal care compared to PHCUs and PHCCs.

Table 71: Health Facility Staff Available by Type of Facility (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)

Staff Type Hospital PHCC PHCU

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Staff, Doctor 10.2 9 1.1 4 0.5 4

Medical Assistant 15.9 14 10.3 39 4.2 35

Nurse 13.6 12 15.1 57 12.2 101

Mid wife 10.2 9 11.9 45 9.3 77

TBA 6.8 6 13.7 52 16.9 140

Laboratory Assistant 14.7 13 8.4 32 1.3 11

Pharmacist 9.1 8 10.3 39 9.5 79

Vaccinator 10.2 9 12.2 46 15.9 131

MCHW 7.9 7 9.2 35 11.2 93

Other 1.1 1 7.4 28 18.5 153

Total 100.0 88 100.0 377 100.0 824


Satisfaction with health units was again found to be low across all return counties with 76.9% (n=304) of respondents reporting dissatisfaction. Satisfaction rates also are largely evenly distributed across return counties with 23.0% of respondents (n=395) expressing approval.

Table 72: Satisfaction with Health Facility by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Facility Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % N=x % n=x

Yes 24.1 35 21.5 28 23.3 28 23.0 91

Total 100.0 145 100.0 130 100.0 120 100.0 395

The primary reasons for dissatisfaction with health facilities was a lack of available drugs (33.2%, n=210) followed by an absence of qualified personnel (26.1%, n=165) and the absence of referrals (19.8%, n=125). Days of operation were also a significant source of dissatisfaction (9.8%, n=62)as noted by community representatives.

Table 73: Reasons for dissatisfaction with Health Facility (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reason Percent n=x

Not Open Everyday 9.8 62

No Drugs 33.2 210

No Referrals 19.8 125

No Qualified Personnel 26.1 165

Paid Service 2.5 16

Other 8.4 53

Total 100.0 631

High levels of dissatisfaction mean that only 30.2% (n=120) of the community representatives report visiting a health care facility when feeling sick. Similar to the causes of health facility dissatisfaction, reasons for avoiding health treatment include lack of available drugs, distance, and the absence of qualified personnel as the primary reasons for the unwillingness to go to a facility when sick.

Table 74: Persons Attend Health Facility When Sick by County Classification...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 72.73 104 68.09 96 68.14 77 69.77 277

No 27.27 39 31.91 45 31.86 36 30.23 120

Total 100.0 143 100.0 141 100.0 113 100.0 397


4.1.2 diSeASeMalaria remains overwhelmingly the primary cause of illness in all age brackets, followed by pneumonia and diarrhea according to reports by health facility staff. A lack of medicine and transport difficulties were cited as the primary factors making one more vulnerable to illness as indicated by respondents, followed by the lack of resources and ignorance. All reasons of which would appear to be largely preventable.

Table 75: Reported Factors Influencing death by Age Group (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Under-fives 5-17 Years 18-60 Years Elderly

Cause n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x %

Lack of Resources 202 17.4 200 17.4 200 17.4 200 17.4

Lack of Medicines 312 26.9 311 27.1 311 27.1 311 27.1

Logistic/Transport Problem

314 27.1 312 27.2 312 27.2 312 27.2

Ignorance 206 17.8 208 18.1 208 18.1 208 18.1

Cultural Belief 114 9.8 108 9.4 108 9.4 108 9.4

Others 10 0.9 10 0.9 10 0.9 10 0.9

Total 1158 100.0 1149 100.0 1149 100.0 1149 100.0

According to health facility staff, counties of high return experienced elevated instances of cholera (27.1%, n= 22), as well as meningitis (22.9%, n=24), when compared to low and middle return counties. Alternatively, both measles and malaria were reported highest in counties of low return (38.8%, n=21, and 14.8%, n=8 respectively), though this is more likely due to geographical considerations rather than a reflection of return level conditions.

Table 76: Presence of diseases in Boma as Reported by Health Facilities (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Disease Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Cholera 16.6 9 13.1 8 27.1 22 19.9 39

Meningitis 20.3 11 16.3 10 29.6 24 22.9 45

Measles 38.8 21 26.2 16 19.7 16 27.1 53

Yellow fever 1.8 1 6.5 4 1.2 1 3.1 6

Malaria 14.8 8 14.7 9 6.1 5 11.2 22

Diarrhea 1.8 1 9.8 6 6.1 5 6.1 12

Others 5.5 3 13.1 8 9.8 8 9.6 19

Total 100.0 54 100.0 61 100.0 81 100.0 196

Cases 43 56 62 161

Tracking disease is difficult in South Sudan, because along with a lack of adequate health facilities, there is a lack of epidemiological data. Hospitals reported the best access to epidemiological data with 86.7% (n=13) of facilities reporting its availability. As expected, PHCCs (54.0%, n=47) and PHCUs (50.5%, n=169) have noticeably less access to such data. Table 77 details the availability of epidemiological data by facility type.


Table 77: Health Facilities with Accessible and Available epidemiological data (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Data Available Hospital PHCC PHCU

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 86.7 13 54.0 47 50.5 169

No 13.3 2 46.0 40 49.6 166

Total 100.0 15 100.0 87 100.0 335

4.2 SuPPorT

The majority of health facilities, at all levels, noted the government as their primary source of support. This includes medical supplies, with 58.6% (n=361) of facilities citing government as their primary providers. NGOs continue to provide vital support to a significant portion of health units, as 37.2% (n=229) of facilities stated the NGO community as their main source of supplies. The following table shows the actors available to support health care facilities among the surveyed counties in South Sudan.

Table 78: Sources of Primary Health Care Supplies by Source and Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source Hospital PHCC PHCU Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Government 57.1 12 60.0 72 58.3 277 58.6 361NGOs 38.1 8 34.2 41 37.9 180 37.2 229Community 0.0 0 0.8 1 2.1 10 1.8 11Religious Organizations 0.0 0 3.3 4 0.4 2 1.0 6Diaspora 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.2 1 0.2 1Private Sector 0.0 0 1.7 2 0.4 2 0.7 4Individuals 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.4 2 0.3 2Others 4.8 1 0.0 0 0.2 1 0.3 2Total 100.0 21 100.0 120 100.0 475 100.0 616

Cases 15 86 335 436

According to health facility surveys, NGOs act as the key form of support for structural and facility maintenance, with 41.1% (n=208) indicating that NGOs serve as their primary benefactor. The government again acts as the other significant supporter, with 24.7% (n=124) of those surveyed citing government maintenance programs as their primary form of support. Government intervention tends to vary, with an emphasis on Primary Health Care Centers (36.5%, n=38) over Primary Health Care Units (21.2%, n=80) and Hospitals (28.6%, n=6). Alternatively, PHCUs, due to their localized focus, tend to depend on high levels of community support (37.4%, n=141) for maintenance activities, which is less common at the hospital level (4.8%, n=1). Table 79 illustrates the sources of structural and maintenance support as identified by surveyed health facilities. For further information on ways in which health facilities can be assisted to cope with outbreaks, please refer to Table 28 in Annex II.


Table 79: Sources of Structural and Maintenance Support by Source and Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source Hospital PHCC PHCU Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Government 28.6 6 36.5 38 21.2 80 24.7 124NGOs 47.6 10 46.2 48 39.8 150 41.4 208Community 4.8 1 12.5 13 37.4 141 30.9 155Religious Organizations 4.8 1 4.8 5 0.8 3 1.8 9Diaspora 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0Private Sector 4.8 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.2 1Individuals 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.8 3 0.6 3Others 9.5 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.4 2Total 100.0 21 100.0 104 100.0 377 100.0 502Cases 15 84 313 412

The combination of government and NGOs forms the backbone of salary support for health facility staffs across South Sudan. Of the health facilities surveyed, 65.6% (n=353) cited the government as the originator of staff salaries, with an additional 27.7% (n=149) utilizing NGO support for remuneration purposes. Like in other forms of health unit support, localized PHCCs and PHCUs lean more heavily on the NGO community for support as compared to hospitals, which tend to depend more on government funds. Salary support as received by surveyed facilities is detailed in the following table.

Table 80: Sources of Staff Salaries for Health Facilities by Source and Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Support Hospital PHCC PHCU Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Government 62.5 10 59.3 70 67.6 273 65.6 353

NGOs 18.8 3 33.1 39 26.5 107 27.7 149

Community 0.0 0 0.9 1 2.0 8 1.7 9

Religious Organization 6.3 1 3.4 4 0.3 1 1.1 6

Diaspora 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.3 1 0.2 1

Private Sector 6.3 1 1.7 2 0.0 0 0.6 3

Individuals 0.0 0 0.9 1 1.5 6 1.3 7

Others 6.3 1 0.9 1 2.0 8 1.9 10

Total 100.0 16 100.0 118 100.0 404 100.0 538

Cases 15 86 329 430

The NGO community takes the lead role as provider of furniture in all health care facilities, with 59.6% (n=262) of respondents citing NGOs as the source—or the source of funding—of their furniture. Government plays a smaller role in this regard, as only 22.3% (n=98) of units reported their furniture coming from governmental sources. After NGOs and the government, the next provider of note is the community, who provide 14.7% (n=49) of PHCU furniture, further highlighting their dependence on local support.


Table 81: Sources of Furniture for Health Facilities by Source and Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source Hospital PHCC PHCU Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Government 21.1 4 26.4 23 21.3 71 22.3 98

NGOs 68.4 13 59.8 52 59.0 197 59.6 262

Community 0.0 0 4.6 4 14.7 49 12.1 53


Diaspora 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.3 1 0.2 1

Private Sector 5.3 1 0.0 0 0.9 3 0.9 4

Individuals 0.0 0 2.3 2 2.4 8 2.3 10

Others 0.0 0 1.2 1 0.9 3 0.9 4

Total 100.0 19 100.0 87 100.0 334 100.0 440

Cases 15 77 296 388

For laboratory equipment, hospitals and the donor community both play crucial roles in providing support to health units. Of those surveyed, 54.6% (n=71) of all health facilities have sourced lab resources from government sponsorship, with 34.6% (n=45) utilizing NGO support. Hospitals tend to receive a greater proportion of NGO backing for lab equipment (43.8%, n=7) than PHCCs (39.3%, n=22) and PHCUs (27.6%, n=16).

Table 82: Sources of Laboratory equipment for Health Facilities by Source and Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source Hospital PHCC PHCU Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Government 50.0 8 58.9 33 51.7 30 54.6 71

NGOs 43.8 7 39.3 22 27.6 16 34.6 45

Community 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0


Diaspora 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

Private Sector 0.0 0 0.0 0 6.9 4 3.1 4

Individuals 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.7 1 0.8 1

Others 0.0 0 0.0 0 8.6 5 3.9 5

Total 100.0 16 100.0 56 100.0 58 100.0 130

Cases 12 43 47 102


4.3 IMMunIzATIonS

Routine immunizations are provided at all three levels of health facilities, with the highest vaccination rates coming from PHCCs (83.7%, n=86) followed closely by hospitals (78.6%, n=14) and PHCUs (77.7%, n=336). However, 22.3% (n=75) of local PHCUs and 16.3% (n=14) of PHCCs do not provide immunization services, potentially leaving a significant portion of South Sudan’s population unprotected from vaccine preventable diseases.

Table 83: Health Facilities Providing Routine Immunization for Children by Facility Type (Source: Health technical Questionnaire...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Immunizations provided Hospital PHCC PHCU

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 78.6 11 83.7 72 77.7 261

No 21.4 3 16.3 14 22.3 75

Total 100.0 14 100.0 86 100.0 336

Even in the case when health facilities do offer child immunization services, the full package of immunization coverage is not always available. Half (52.8%; n=247) of facilities report providing the full range of immunizations for children under one, decreasing to 49.4% (n=231) for the full range of immunizations for children under five, and 12.4% (n=58) for children under ten.

Table 84: Reported Level of expanded Programs for Immunization (ePI) Coverage Provided to Children by Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Immunization Program No Yes Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Full immunization for children under 1 47.2 221 52.8 247 100.0 488

Partial immunization for children under 1 79.3 371 20.7 97 100.0 468





For those health facilities that do not provide routine immunization or incomplete immunization services, immunizations in catchment areas are reported as being conducted by 66.7% (n=2) of hospitals, 84.6% (n=11) of PHCCs, and 76.5% (n=52) PHCUs. As with the lack of universal routine immunization, there is a substantial gap in the coverage of immunization, with 23.5% (n=16) of PHCUs reporting no immunization activities in their catchment areas if they do not conduct routine immunization.


Table 85: Immunization Campaigns in Catchment Areas Where Routine Immunization is not Conducted by Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Occurrence of Campaigns Hospital PHCC PHCU Total

% n=x % n=x % N=x % n=x

Yes 66.7 2 84.6 11 76.5 52 77.4 65

No 33.3 1 15.4 2 23.5 16 22.6 19

Total 100.0 3 100.0 13 100.0 68 100.0 84

4.4 HeALTH eduCATIon

Health education sessions were reported to occur in 75.9% (n=333) of health facilities, leaving 24.2% (n=106) of health facilities reporting no health education session offerings. Health education prevalence tends to be evenly distributed across health facility type

Table 86: Health Facilities Conducting Health education Sessions in Bomas by Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Availability of Programming Hospital PHCC PHCU Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 73.3 11 74.1 63 76.4 259 75.9 333

No 26.7 4 25.9 22 23.6 80 24.2 106

Total 100.0 15 100.0 85 100.0 339 100.0 439

Health messages in South Sudan remain diverse, covering a multitude of applicable topics. Last year, in respondent areas, hygiene and nutrition sessions comprised the greatest proportion of health sessions (20.9%, n=312), with sessions on malaria (15.2%, n=227), HIV/AIDS (14.5%, n=216), child nutrition (13.6%, n=202), and sexually transmitted diseases (11.5%, n=172) all having significant coverage by educators.

Table 87: Health education Sessions Conducted in the Last year by Topic (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Topic % n=x

Hygiene & Nutrition 20.9 312

Child Nutrition 13.6 202

Family Planning 9.1 135

Reproductive Health 7.6 113

Sexually Transmitted Diseases 11.5 172

Other Transmissible Diseases 6.4 95

HIV/AIDs 14.5 216

Malaria 15.2 227

Other 1.3 19

Total 100.0 1491


4.5 SAnITATIon

Improper disposal of medical waste carries with it significant risks for the population, as much of it can prove hazardous for human contact. Burning of waste appears to be the most prominent form of clinical waste disposal among hospitals (54.6%, n=12), PHCCs (54.6%, n=72), and PHCUs (62.1%, n=257).

However, as a secondary method of disposal, burial of waste in the ground is the second most practiced means by PHCUs (26.3%, n=109) and PHCCs (22.0%, n=29); while for hospitals, the second most practiced means of disposal was through designated bio-hazard bins (22.7%, n=5). These differences are indicative of the more sophisticated equipment and superior hygiene present higher up the health facility ranks, and highlight the lack of alternative disposal methods at the local level; as such, the lack of solid waste management services results in both high burn rates, as well as high bury rates. Alternatively, hospitals—especially in larger cities—have access to the full range of waste disposal options and therefore their methods tend to be more hygienic than other health facilities.

Table 88: Methods of Clinical Waste disposal by Health Facility Type (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Disposal Type Hospital PHCCs PHCUs

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Open Garbage 13.6 3 6.1 8 4.1 17

Designated Bio-Hazard Bins 22.7 5 15.9 21 7.0 29

Bury in the Ground 9.1 2 22.0 29 26.3 109

Burn 54.6 12 54.6 72 62.1 257

Other 0.0 0 1.5 2 0.5 2

Total 100.0 22 100.0 132 100.0 414


5. eduCATIon

Literacy levels in South Sudan remain one the lowest in the world, with only 27% of males and 19% of females 15 and over report being able to read.5 Current rates of attendance in a formal educational institution also re-main low, 52% of those aged 15 and above in the urban areas having never been in school; in rural areas this number climbs to 77.9%.

There are about 1.3 million children of primary school age without access to education—a situation that dis-proportionately affects girls, as they are less likely to enroll in school programs and more likely to drop out in the early stages. Disparities are not just present in enrolment, as South Sudan has low female-to-male teacher ratios, with some states reporting as little as 5% of females teaching at schools.

South Sudan has an acute deficit of trained teachers, with over 40% of the teachers achieving only primary edu-cation, 45% with a maximum of secondary education and 10% with no formal, or unknown vocational training.6 These educational deficiencies are not consistent across the country, with some states like Northern Bahr-El-Ghazal, Warrap, Lakes and Unity reporting high rates of enrollment— though educational infrastructure and student resources are quite limited.

A lack of educational infrastructure is even more problematic in counties of high return, where the recent influx of returnees strains the limited capacity of schools. In addition, returnees—particularly those arriving from Khartoum—report having a difficult time adjusting to the host educational system, as they have not achieved an adequate proficiency in English to resume at the same point of study they halted before returning to South Sudan.

5.1 SySTeM

South Sudan’s formal educational system consists of eight years of primary school and four years of secondary school. However, this system is yet to be fully implemented, as the majority of schools in South Sudan do not offer the complete educational cycle.7 Hence, school availability does not accurately represent accessibility to all levels of primary or secondary education. The presence of schools by county as identified by surveyed educational facilitates is described in the following table

5 UNESCO (2012).6 Ibid.7 World Bank South Sudan Education Report (2012).


Primary school students learn about good hygiene and sanitation practices in Leer payam, Leer county (Gianluca Loi 2012).


Table 89: Presence of Schools by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x

CEQ Kajo-Keji Low return 100 31 0 0 100 31

CEQ Lainya Middle return 100 15 0 0 100 15

CEQ Morobo High return 82.4 14 17.6 3 100 17

CEQ Yei Low return 100 22 0 0 100 22

EEQ Ikotos Middle return 93.9 31 6.1 2 100 33

EEQ Torit Low return 93.5 29 6.5 2 100 31

LAK Rumbek Centre Middle return 79.2 19 20.8 5 100 24

LAK Rumbek East Middle return 95 19 5 1 100 20

LAK Yirol West Middle return 84 21 16 4 100 25

LAK Yirol East High return 72.7 16 27.3 6 100 22

NBEG Aweil Centre High return 75.9 22 24.1 7 100 29

NBEG Aweil East High return 90.1 64 9.9 7 100 71

NBEG Aweil North High return 93.5 29 6.5 2 100 31

NBEG Aweil South High return 84 21 16 4 100 25

NBEG Aweil West High return 82.8 24 17.2 5 100 29

UNI Guit Low return 66.7 16 33.3 8 100 24

UNI Koch High return 22.6 12 77.4 41 100 53

UNI Leer High return 50 23 50 23 100 46

UNI Mayiendit Middle return 50 14 50 14 100 28

UNI Panyijar Low return 43.9 18 56.1 23 100 41

UNI Rubkona High return 14.8 8 85.2 46 100 54

WAR Gogrial East Low return 100 13 0 0 100 13

WAR Gogrial West Low return 100 28 0 0 100 28

WAR Tonj North Low return 93 40 7 3 100 43

WAR Twic Low return 100 22 0 0 100 22

WBEG Jur River Middle return 93.8 30 6.3 2 100 32

WBEG Raja Middle return 90.9 10 9.1 1 100 11

WBEG Wau Middle return 95.2 20 4.8 1 100 21

WEQ Maridi Low return 64.7 11 35.3 6 100 17

WEQ Mundri West Middle return 84.6 11 15.4 2 100 13

Total 75 653 25 218 100 871 Subtotal Low return 84.6 230 15.4 42 100 272

Subtotal Middle return 85.6 190 14.4 32 100 222

The Education Technical Questionnaire shows that 74.8% (n=647) of bomas surveyed have a school facility available in the area; however, only less than a quarter (23.53%, n= 292) of all educational facilities provide the full 8-year primary cycle. In counties of high return, there is a lower penetration of school facilities, whereby only 61.5% (n=230) of the bomas report an educational facility in the area, of which only 20.87% (n=48) provide the complete primary education cycle.


A variety of curriculums are currently being used in all counties of return, including Republic of Sudan, Kenya and Uganda curriculums along with the new South Sudan curriculum. The majority (95.1%, n=421) of education facilities from high return counties report using the South Sudan curriculum. The Uganda curriculum has a considerable penetration in counties of low return and middle return, with 14.9% (n=90) and 6.2% (n=23) of the schools acknowledging their use respectively. The Kenyan curriculum presents a shy participation in counties of middle return with 6.2% (n=25) of the schools reporting its use.

Table 90: School Curriculums by County Classification (Source: education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Curriculum Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

(Old) Sudan 2.2 13 4.9 18 2.0 9 2.8 40

Kenya 3.1 19 6.7 25 2.8 13 4.0 57

Uganda 14.9 90 6.2 23 2.8 13 8.8 126

New South Sudan 78.8 476 81.9 304 91.5 421 83.7 1,201

Others 1.0 6 0.3 1 0.9 4 0.8 11

Total 100 604 100 371 100 460 100 1,435

The current application of both Uganda and Kenya curriculums in counties of low and middle return responds to the proximity of some counties to the border with Uganda and Kenya, particularly counties in Central and Eastern Equatoria States. However, the use of these curriculums inhibits the development of primary education cycle, as they are based in a three or six year cycles, with no compatibility with the current new South Sudan curriculum. The language of instruction also varies among schools, as is demonstrated by the following table.

Table 91: Languages of Instruction in Schools (Source: education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Language % n=x

Arabic 3.9 85

English 57.7 1,256

Local 38.3 833

Total 100.0 2,174

Arabic is losing relevance in South Sudan’s educational system, as it is the language taught in only 3.9% (n=34) of the schools in counties of high return. Likewise, the curriculum of the Republic of Sudan shares a very small participation with an overall 2.8% (n=40) of schools reporting its use. English is the preferable language of instruction, though it is still only used in 57.7% (n=499) of the schools. Local languages are use in 38.3% (n=331) of all educational institutions surveyed.


5.2 enroLLMenT And droPouT rATe

There is a strong disparity between boys and girls rate of enrollment in all counties of return. Boys have a higher tendency to be registered in school as indicated by the mean average of all children attending school is 62.9% to the mean average of only girls attending school at 48.3%. For further data on enrolment and dropout rates, please refer to section 6.3 of Annex II.

Table 92: Mean Averages of Perceived Attendance in School by Gender and County Classification8 (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low return Medium return High return Overall

Mean Average Percentage of All Children Attending School

60.5% 63.6% 64.4% 62.9%

Mean Average Percentage of Girl Children Attending School

46.3% 49.5% 49.1% 48.3%

In addition to the low rate of female enrollment, girls are more likely to drop out of school than boys, with small variations between counties of return. The following table represents the ratio of dropout rates to enrollment by area of return as determined by the Education Technical Questionnaire.

Table 93: Ratio of dropouts to enrollment by County Classification (Source: educational Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Ratio of Male Dropouts to Enrollment Ratio of Female Dropouts to Enrollment

Low Return 8.0% 11.5%

Medium Return 9.6% 12.8%

High Return 9.8% 14.6%

The majority of the bomas surveyed state that girls are encouraged to drop out of school as a result of early marriage (26.1%, n=778) or a family decision (16.4%, n=786). Although distance is considered a significant deterrent for enrolling in school as well as a common cause of withdrawal, “family decision” was among the most common reasons given for dropping out. Such data exemplifies a prioritization of household chores or family income over the education of girls. This situation ultimately translates into higher rates of female illiteracy, limiting the female opportunities to access alternative training, and restricting opportunities for social and economic development. The following table details the discussed reasons for dropout of school as identified by education facilities.

8 Community representatives and boma administrators were asked to estimate the enrolment rates of children in the community utilizing the following choices: 25%; 50%; 75%; 100%. These numbers represent the average of these responses.


Table 94: Reasons for dropout of School (Source: education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reason for Dropout % n=x

High School Fees 5.3 158

Distance 21.9 652

Conflict 2.0 60

Early Marriage 26.1 778

Family Decision 26.4 786

Migration 7.3 216

Others 11.0 326

Total 100.0 2976

The education questionnaire noted that children drop out of school to support family income generating activities such as farming, herding or assisting in market activities. These activities vary between classifications of return, responding to specific regional conditions. For example, children drop out of school overwhelmingly in Western Equatoria due to market duties (61%), with this same response having a smaller representation in all other surveyed states.

Farming duty ranks as one of the most common reasons for children to drop out of school, with all education facilities noting dropout rates higher than 30%. Eastern Equatoria has the highest dropout rates due to farming duty, with 46.2% (n=31) of education facilities stating this as the primary cause. Herding stands as a third major activity influencing children’s dropout, and is particularly predominant in Warrap State (44.1%, n=30), Unity State (44.2%, n=65) and Lakes State (36.6%, n=41). The following table demonstrates the correlation between cause for school dropout and the predominant livelihood of the various regions.

Table 95: Activities that Conflict with the School Calendar by State (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

CES EEQ LAK NBEG UNI WAR WBEG WEQ Total


Market Duty 18.3 9 19.4 13 6.2 7 7.1 8 10.2 15 2.9 2 17.8 5 61.5 8 11.2 67

Herding Duty 6.1 3 29.8 20 36.6 41 34.5 39 44.2 65 44.1 30 17.8 5 0.0 0 34.0 203

Farming Duty 38.7 19 46.2 31 39.2 44 44.2 50 31.2 46 36.7 25 39.2 11 30.7 4 38.5 23.0

Seasonal Migration 6.1 3 2.9 2 16.0 18 13.2 15 14.2 21 11.7 8 14.2 4 0.0 0 11.8 71

Other 30.6 15 1.4 1 1.7 2 0.9 1 0.0 0 4.4 3 10.7 3 7.6 1 4.3 26

Total 100.0 49 100.0 67 100.0 112 100.0 113 100.0 147 100.0 68 100.0 28 100.0 13 100.0 59

Cases 36 40 51 61 69 37 18 9 321

School fees do not seem to have as much influence on the cause for withdrawal, as fees remain relatively low— SSP 50 on average, or USD159 being the annual fee. Of those financial institutions surveyed, 5.3% (n=158) cited this as the cause for a pupil dropping out of school. On the other hand, feeding fees are reported to be six times higher than school fees in counties of high return, which may discourage parents to send their children to school, or encourage them to dropout before achieving the preferred level of education.

9 This is assuming an exchange rate of 3.33 SSP to the Dollar.


5.3 SCHooL InFrASTruCTure

As evidenced in prior topics, infrastructure is lacking across South Sudan—and schools are also affected by this shortcoming. Of the facilities surveyed in the education questionnaire, an average 25.8% (n=468) use permanent building structures as the primary facility for education. The majority of facilities conduct class in an open air setting, with 36.6% (n=664) stating this response; 26.1% (n=473) are located under a temporary shade or a tukul. The types of school structure are further broken down into county classification in Table 96.

Table 96: School Structures by Type and County Classification (Source: education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type of Structure Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Permanent Building 27.3 184 31.9 143 20.4 141 25.8 468

Semi-Permanent Building 8.9 60 15.6 70 9.7 67 10.8 197

Temporary Shade or Tukul 26.5 179 19.2 86 30.1 208 26.1 473

Open Air 36.9 249 32.2 144 39.3 271 36.6 664

Other 0.3 2 0.9 4 0.3 2 0.4 8

Total 100.0 674 100.0 447 100.0 689 100.0 1,810

Cases 481 320 441 1,242

Structures are further unable to accommodate the number of school aged students, with 71.0% (n=614) of facilities across surveyed counties noting that they are unable to accommodate all children in their catchment area; in counties of high return this percentage increases to 79.1% (n=684) of schools reporting that they are not able to accommodate all children in their facilities. These trends are a predictable response to the high influx of returnees and expanding young population in South Sudan over the last years.

Of the educational facilities surveyed, 70.5% (n=609) stated that they are able to provide a game or playing area within the school facility; however only 41.2% (n=354) of institutions are able to provide sports equipment that can be utilized in these areas. Less than half of the educational facilities possess furniture, with only 48.3% (n=417) reporting any sort of equipment within their facilities. A great majority of schools report being ill equipped to respond to medical emergencies, as only 3.1% (n=27) of schools surveyed report having first aid equipment.

According to the educational technical questionnaire, over 82.2% (n=484) of the schools surveyed are able to provide potable water—this ranges from 77.8% (n=158) in counties of low return, 85.5% (n=130) in counties of middle return and 83.8% (n=196) in counties of high return. The following table further illustrates the accessibility to water within the educational facilities surveyed.


Table 97: Status of Water Source and Availability in Schools by County Classification (Source: education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Water Source Low Return Middle Return High Return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Potable water in the school (Yes) 45.2 222 49.1 161 53.6 240 49.2 623Total 100.0 491 100.0 328 100.0 448 100.0 1,267Non-potable water for hygiene in the school compound (Yes) 77.8 158 85.5 130 83.8 196 82.2 484

Total 100.0 203 100.0 152 100.0 234 100.0 589Water sufficient for all children (Yes) 74.1 146 66.7 100 76.2 176 73.0 422Total 100.0 197 100.0 100 100.0 176 100.0 422

Of the facilities surveyed, 82.2% report having access to non-potable water for latrine or basic sanitation use. However, only 53.3% (n=676) of the schools report having latrines within their facilities. Among counties of low return, 53.8% (n=265) have latrines within school facilities, 62.8% (n=206) among middle return, and 45.8% (n=205) among counties of high return. An average 84.2% of schools have separate toilet facilities for boys and girls; and 75.2% (n=505) have different facilities for teachers and pupils. The availability of latrines in schools as noted by educational facilities surveyed is detailed in the below table.

Table 98: Availability and Access to Latrines in Schools by Type and County Classification (Source: education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Facility Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Latrines in the school (Yes) 53.8 265 62.8 206 45.8 205 53.3 676

Total 100.0 493 100.0 328 100.0 448 100.0 1,269

Separate toilets for boys and girls (Yes) 84.0 221 83.4 171 85.4 175 84.2 567

Total 100.0 263 100.0 205 100.0 205 100.0 567

Separate toilets for teachers and pupils (Yes) 69.0 180 75.1 154 83.0 171 75.2 505

Total 100.0 261 100.0 205 100.0 206 100.0 672

Toilet for the disabled (Yes) 21.5 54 12.1 24 29.0 58 20.9 136

Total 100.0 251 100.0 200 100.0 207 100.0 658

All toilets accessible (Yes) 68.9 173 75.0 150 80.2 166 74.3 489

Total 100.0 251 100.0 200 100.0 207 100.0 658

Data shows inadequate facilities for persons with disabilities, as only 20.9% (n=136) of the schools report having access to toilet facilities with access for the physically disabled.


5.4 urgenT needS

The Boma Questionnaire notes that in 42.7% (n=283) of educational institutions surveyed, teachers training is their most crucial need. Despite this being a recurrent concern claim from school administrators, teachers training institutes remain severely under budget, with a portion of just over 1% of South Sudan’s educational budget.10 The following table identifies the most urgent needs for schools as portrayed in the boma questionnaire.

Table 99: urgent Needs for Schools (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Need Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Trained Teachers 39.1 90 54.9 105 36.5 88 42.7 283

Structural Maintenance 8.2 19 12.1 23 12.4 30 10.8 72

School Latrines 0.9 2 0.0 0 3.7 9 1.6 11

Additional Classes 24.7 57 11.5 22 22.8 55 20.2 134

School Furniture 1.3 3 3.1 6 2.1 5 2.1 14

Books 2.6 6 3.6 7 2.4 6 2.8 19

Potable Water 3.1 7 4.1 8 6.2 15 4.5 30

School Feeding 7.8 18 7.3 14 9.5 23 8.3 55

Other Need Rating 12.1 28 3.2 6 4.1 10 6.6 44

Total 100.0 230 100.0 191 100.0 241 100.0 662

Cases 229 190 238 657

The academic quality of educational facilities depends on the skills, capacity, and training of teachers; it is therefore necessary, for the sake of South Sudan’s children and the country as a whole, that teachers are well equipped upon entering the classroom. The need for trained teachers has been acknowledged by schools, but the current deficit of such nonetheless represents a critical barrier to quality education.

Although school infrastructure is generally lacking, as discussed previously, this was not expressed as an urgent concern by community representatives, with only 10.8% (n=72) of representatives reporting maintenance of the school structure as an urgent necessity. Furthermore, WASH programming was only considered an urgent need by 1.6% (n=11) of community representatives, while access to potable water was considered urgent by 4.5% (n=55) of representatives.

10 World Bank (2012).


5.5 SuPPorT

Although infrastructure and resources have been identified as generally lacking, of the support available to schools and teachers in South Sudan, the government and NGOs tend to be the most significant contributors of support. Community and religious organisations are noted as smaller contributors of support, while the role of the private sector is almost negligible.

Table 100 highlights the central role of the Government in providing books and stationary, whereby they provide 48.0% (n=842) of the support in this section. NGOs provide almost equal amounts of support with 40.23% (n=706), highlighting the importance of actors other than the government in education support.

Table 100: Support Providers of Books and Stationary (Source: education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x %

Government 842 47.98

Community 121 6.89

NGOs 706 40.23

Private Sector 35 1.99

Religious Organizations 46 2.62

Others 5 0.28

Total 1,755 100.0

While the government was the main source of support for school books and stationary, their support for school structural maintenance (24.14%, n=253) falls behind that provided by the community itself (50.95%, n=534). NGOs continue to play a considerable role in infrastructure support, contributing to 19.0% (n=199) of maintenance support, unlike the private sector, whose presence was not recorded at all.

Table 101: Support Providers of School Structural Maintenance (Source: education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x %

Government 253 24.14

Community 534 50.95

NGOs 199 18.99



Others 13 1.24

Total 1,048 100.0

In terms of paying teachers’ salaries, the government is unsurprisingly the dominant provider of support, responsible for 79.5% (n=1037) of salary provision. The remainder of teacher salary support comes predominantly from the community, who provide 13.8% (n=180) of salary support; NGOs, religious organisations, and the private do not play a particularly significant supporting role in this area, providing a combined total of only 5.4% (n=70) toward teacher salaries.


Table 102: Support Providers of Teacher Salaries (Source: education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x %

Government 1,037 79.46

Community 180 13.79

NGOs 37 2.84



Others 18 1.38

Total 1,305 100.0


6. SeCurITy

In 2012 alone, there were 350,000 IDPs in South Sudan as a result of drought, floods and inter-tribal conflict.11 Inter-tribal conflicts have persisted in Warrap, Jonglei and Western Bahr el Ghazal States.

Children and women are particularly vulnerable in crisis scenarios, most especially to hunger, displacement, domestic violence, and underrepresentation issues.12 The Boma Questionnaire collected information on the perceived violations, threats, and risks originating externally or locally, within the boma.

Bomas report strong food concerns, with hunger cited by 34.0% (n=274) as their greatest external threat. Community representatives also report epidemics (22.7%, n=183), floods (14.3%, n=116), and drought (14.9%, n=120) as pressing external threats, which was discussed in more detail in Section 2 on livelihoods. The following table provides basic details on external threats by county classification.

Table 103: external Violations, Threats, and Risks by Type and County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Threat Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Armed conflict 10.0 65 14.9 82 7.3 67 10.1 214

Drought 16.7 109 18.0 99 11.6 106 14.9 314

Floods 15.5 101 10.4 57 15.9 145 14.3 303

Hunger 34.4 224 32.1 176 34.8 316 34.0 716

Epidemics 22.4 146 21.7 119 23.5 214 22.7 479

Others 0.7 5 2.7 15 6.5 59 3.7 79

Total 100.0 650 100.0 548 100.0 907 100.0 2,105

Cases 238 206 361 805

An average of 10.1% of community representative surveyed noted armed conflict as a threat present among their respective bomas.

At the boma level, disease remains the largest threat facing respondents, as 21.1% (n=656) cite crop disease and 20.3% (n=629) indicated livestock disease as primary threats. As the country’s primary crop, the 2012 outbreak of maize lethal necrosis disease (MLCD) exemplified the susceptibility of farmers to crop diseases. East Coast Fever has similarly highlighted the dangers to cattle producers, specifically in Warrap, Jonglei, and Lakes State. In late 2012, the Twic East County Commissioner noted that East Coast Fever was killing 20 cattle a day.13 Local violations, threats and risks as identified by community representatives are detailed in Table 104.

11 UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (9 January 2012). Cumulative figures of new conflict related displacement reported in 2011. Retrieved from: www.internal-displacement.org12 Ibid. 13 Achiek, Jacob Jok. (6 February 2013). “Livestock diseases strike Twic East County.” Gurtong. Retrieved from: www.gurtong.net.


Table 104: Local Violations, Threats, and Risks by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Threat Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Local Conflict 10.4 101 11.2 89 9.9 132 10.4 322

Domestic Violence 18.7 181 20.3 162 19.7 262 19.5 606

Violence against Women 11.7 113 14.9 119 17.7 237 15.1 469

Seasonal Road Access 12.4 120 13.8 110 14.3 191 13.6 421

Crop Disease 23.9 231 20.9 167 17.3 231 20.3 629

Livestock Disease 22.9 221 18.9 151 21.2 284 21.1 656

Total 100.0 967 100.0 798 100.0 1,338 100.0 3,103

Cases 262 213 372 847

6.1 ConFLICT

External conflict such as armed conflict, drought, floods, hunger, and epidemics was identified as present among all surveyed counties, with community representatives from middle return counties noting the highest levels at 36.9% (n=82), as compared to 23.9% (n=65) and 17.8% (n=67) among low return and high return counties, respectively. Table 105 on the following page shows the breakdown of external conflict as identified by community representatives, but for detail on responses to specific external threats, please refer to Section 7 in Annex II.

Community leaders reported that levels of local conflict were of higher proportions than external conflicts. The highest incidences of local conflict were reported as occurring among middle return counties, with 40.1% (n=89) of community leaders citing this. Over a third (37.1%, n=101) of low return counties, and 35.0% (n=132) of high return counties noted local conflict.

When comparing the existence of local conflict to external conflict by county, in many instances the same general trends are visible. For example, in Rumbek Central, there was a 75.0% (n=18) presence of external conflict and a similar level of local conflict at 70.8% (n=17) and in Aweil North, there were low levels of external and local conflict at 3.2% (n=1) and 9.7% (n=3) respectively. However, in the case of Kajo-Keji county, there were significantly higher levels of local conflict (64.5%, n=20) than external conflict, where there was only a 9.7% (n=3) presence recorded.

Occurrences of local conflict are broken down by county in Table 106.


Table 105: existence of external conflict as a Violation, Threat or Risk by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x



































Table 106: existence of Local Conflict as a Threat, Violation or Risk by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 37.0 322 63.0 549 100.0 871





The most common response to local conflict includes reporting crime to the police, with 35.3% (n=300) of community representatives noting this response; temporary migration consisted of 21.7% (n=115) of responses, and retaliation consisted of 18.4% of responses to local conflict. For further details, please refer to Section 7 of Annex II.

Table 107: Responses to Local Conflict by Type and County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Response Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Report to Police 37.6 91 35.0 83 34.0 126 35.3 300

Retaliation 14.1 34 15.6 37 22.9 85 18.4 156

Temporary Migration 17.8 43 22.4 53 23.7 88 21.7 184

Communal Support 17.4 42 12.7 30 11.6 43 13.5 115

Support from Neighboring Boma 9.9 24 11.0 26 7.3 27 9.1 77

Other 3.3 8 3.4 8 0.5 2 2.1 18

6.2 SexuAL And gender-bASed vIoLenCe

Survey data gathered through the Boma Questionnaire regarding local threats was particularly telling of the challenges facing women. Domestic violence was cited by 19.5% (n=606) of community representative as a threat, and 15.1% (n=469) indicated that violence against women was the most significant domestic threat faced by the community.

An additional 31.2% (n=854) reported feeling insecure outside of their homes, highlighting the fact that threats to women are not confined to the household. The perceptions of insecurity were most pronounced in mid (37.3%, n=217) and low (35.7%, n=94) return counties as opposed to high return counties (24.6%, n=92). The following table illustrates the number of women who feel insecure outside their homes as identified by community representatives.


Table 108: Bomas Reporting that Women Feel Insecure outside their Homes by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x



































Women are noted as feeling more threatened outside the home in some states as compared to others. The highest incidences of insecurity were reported in Lakes (50%, n=44), Unity (46.4%, n=112), and Warrap (41.7, n=43) States. (For further detail on sexual or gender based violence, please refer to Section 7.3 of the Annex)

Table 109: Bomas Reporting Women Feel Insecure outside of Home by State (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

CEQ EEQ LAK NBEG UNI WAR WBEG WEQ Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=n % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 11.7 10 18.3 11 50.0 44 13.1 24 46.4 112 41.7 43 20.6 13 33.3 10 31.2 267

No 88.2 75 81.6 49 50.0 44 86.9 160 53.5 129 58.2 60 79.3 50 66.6 20 68.7 587

Total 100.0 86 100.0 60 100.0 88 100.0 184 100.0 241 100.0 103 100.0 63 100.0 30 100.0 854

In terms of reporting incidents of violence, 28.4% (n=362) of community representatives indicated that women respond by alerting the police, while 34.2% (n=436) stated that they go through the traditional court system.

Table 110: Responses to Perceived Violence against Women &Girl Children by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Action Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Report to Traditional Court 35.6 98 35.1 111 33.3 227 34.2 436

Report to Police 27.6 76 29.7 94 28.1 192 28.4 362

Protection from Relatives 30.1 83 28.8 91 29.9 204 29.7 378

Flee 5.1 14 6.1 19 7.9 54 6.8 87

Other 1.4 4 0.3 1 0.5 4 0.7 9

Total 100.0 275 100.0 316 100.0 681 100.0 1272

Cases 107 119 239 465

Rape is reported as a significant source of danger to women, especially in high return counties, as it accounts for 24.6% (n=205) of all cases of reported violence against women. Physical violence in general is highest in counties of medium (28.2%, n=234) and high (31.1%, n=259) return in comparison with counties of low return, which account for 18.3% (n=152) of incidents of violence against women.

Calls for police intervention in alleged crimes are most commonly recorded in cases of cattle theft, making up 21.1% (n=104) of cases, and general theft, which makes up 20.3% (n=326) of cases. Murder, assaults, land disputes, and rape are also significant other complaints brought to the police—at 15.1% (n=241), 11.4% (n=183), 9.9% (n=159), and 7.1% (n=115) respectively. Though case ratios remain relatively evenly distributed across return counties, high return counties reported significantly lower rape cases than other zones.


Table 111: Cases of Alleged Crimes Referred to Police by Type and County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Type Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Rape 8.6 42 12.1 51 3.1 22 7.1 115

Murder 17.9 87 16.8 71 11.9 83 15.1 241

Abduction 2.4 12 4.5 19 2.4 17 2.9 48

Conflicts 11.7 57 10.9 46 8.1 56 9.9 159

Assaults 11.7 57 10.4 44 11.7 82 11.4 183

General Theft 18.5 90 19.6 83 21.9 153 20.3 326

Land Grabbing 4.7 23 7.1 30 15.3 107 9.9 160

Cattle Theft 21.4 104 15.8 67 23.8 166 21.1 337

Other 2.8 14 2.6 11 1.4 10 2.1 35

Total 100.0 486 100.0 422 100.0 696 100.0 1,604

Cases 174 126 207 507

Counties of high return were significantly more likely to refer cases of alleged land grabbing to the police; as evidenced by 15.3% (n=107) of land grabbing reports in high return counties versus 4.7% (n=23) in low return counties. Land allocation, particularly for farming, is a particularly sensitive issue for returnees who often find their land has been appropriated in their absence, which may go some way in explaining this correlation. However, the fact that such matters are being referred to the police indicates a willingness to use existing justice systems, which could be construed quite positively.

Women and children were noted as most vulnerable when accessing a water point. Violence is the result of 37.9% (n=95) of water point related incidents, followed by significant levels of rape 22.3% (n=56) and abduction 10.8% (n=27). Among respondents, rape is markedly higher amongst middle return bomas at 28.9% (n=28). Table 112 details the recorded instances of violence when accessing water points.

Table 112: Recorded Instances of Alleged Violence Related to Accessing Water Points by Type and County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Incidence Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Abduction 11.1 7 14.4 14 6.6 6 10.8 27

Rape 17.5 11 28.9 28 18.7 17 22.3 56

Violence 30.2 19 39.2 38 41.8 38 37.9 95

Other 41.3 26 17.5 17 4.0 30 29.1 73

Total 100.0 63 100.0 97 100.0 91 100.0 251

Cases 50 60 74 184


Around a third (30.3%, n=258) community representatives noted that the distance from dwellings to water points poses a threat to women and children. Distance as a safety and security concern remains broadly applicable to all returnee groupings, and is represented in the following Table 113.

Table 113: Water Points Considered Safe distance for Women and Children by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 71.5 188 65.7 142 70.8 264 69.7 594

No 28.5 75 34.3 74 29.2 109 30.3 258

Total 100.0 263 100.0 216 100.0 373 100.0 852

A close-up of a girl from Akoc payam in Twic county (2012).


6.3 ruLe oF LAW InSTITuTIonS

As noted earlier, traditional courts are a common form of conflict mitigation noted by community representatives. Traditional authorities are present in 97.0% (n=262) of the bomas studied, giving them much greater representation than judicial (20.3%, n=168) and police authorities (46.0%, n=211).

Table 114: Presence of Traditional Boma Court by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x



































While there is little variation in the presence of traditional courts by county, the presence of accessible judicial courts showed extreme variation from no presence in Aweil North, Raja, Gogrial East, and Guit counties to 100.0% (n=17) presence in Morobo. There are only three counties with a higher than 50.0% existence of an accessible judicial court, namely Kajo-Keji (85.7%, n=24), Morobo (100.0%, n=17), and Maridi (68.8%, n=11), meaning that the vast majority of counties have extremely poor access to official means of resolving disputes. Thirteen counties have an accessible judicial court presence of 10.0% or less; the majority (n=7) of which are in counties of high return, precisely where a strong presence of law is likely to be needed. As highlighted earlier in Table 111, the highest rates of alleged land grabbing crimes are present in counties of high return (15.3%, n= 107) as are rates of general theft at 21.9% (n=153), and cattle theft at 23.8% (n=166) indicating that the lack of access to judicial courts could be problematic. The presence of formal judicial courts is represented through Table 115 on the following page.

With the exception of Raja, WBEG, which shows a complete (100.0%, n=10) police station presence, there is generally a low police station presence in the counties surveyed and 18 of the 31 counties record a presence of 50.0% or less. Disaggregating this by counties of return, slight variances can be seen whereby low return counties have the highest reported number of police stations, with 51.9% (n=138) of community representatives noting a presence. Slightly under half, (45.0 %, n=98) of community representatives from middle return counties noted police station presence, and only 43.3% (n=162) did so among high return counties.

This low police station presence may explain to some degree the relatively low levels of people reporting local conflicts to the police, as presented in Table 107 above. Although reporting cases of alleged crimes to the police was the most common response recorded, at 37.6% (n=91) for counties of low return, 35.0% (n=83) for counties of medium return, and 34.0% (n=126) for counties of high return, it can be seen that reporting to the police is by no means an overwhelmingly widespread response. Lower police station presence in counties of high return may also explain why rates of retaliation are higher in these counties (22.9%, n=85) than in counties of low return (14.1%, n=34), also shown in Table 107.Table 116 shows the presence of police stations among surveyed counties.


Table 115: existence of an Accessible Judicial Court by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 20.4 168 79.6 656 100.0 824





Table 116: Presence of Police Station by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 46.4 398 53.6 460 100.0 858





Traditional authorities are utilized to mediate several conflict scenarios arising at the boma level, including 38.7% (n=727) of family disputes, 33.1% (n=621) of cattle disputes and 23.5% (n=441) of land disputes, exemplifying their important role in boma conflict resolution. Given the lack of judicial court access and the relatively low levels of police presence in the majority of counties surveyed, boma courts play a valuable role in resolving community and legal disputes. The following table shows the distribution of issues resolved in local boma courts as identified by community representatives.

Table 117: Issues Resolved in Boma Courts by Type and County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Issue Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Land Disputes 18.9 100 21.9 99 27.0 242 23.5 441

Family Disputes 41.0 217 43.60 197 34.90 313 38.70 727

Cattle Disputes 34.0 180 31.40 142 33.30 299 33.10 621

Other Disputes 6.0 32 2.80 13 4.60 42 4.60 87

Total 100.0 529 100.0 451 100.0 896 100.0 1,876

Cases 246 205 351 802

6.4 unACCoMPAnIed, MISSIng, And SePArATed CHILdren

Separated children are classified as are those separated from both parents, or from their previous legal or customary primary care-giver, but not necessarily from other relatives. These may include children accompanied by other adult family members. Unaccompanied children are children who have been separated from both parents and other relatives and are not being cared by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so. Missing children are defined as any children whose whereabouts is unknown to their legal or customary custodian.14

In surveyed bomas, 14.5% (n=126) of the community representatives surveyed in the Boma Questionnaire indicated a significant presence of unaccompanied children. Separated children were present in 23.9% (n=207) of surveyed bomas.

The following table shows the presence of separated children reported by community representatives by county classification.

14 International Committee of the Red Cross (January 2004). Inter-agency Guiding Principles on Unaccompanied and Separated Children. p. 13.


Table 118: Reported Presence of Separated Children by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 23.8 207 76.2 664 100.0 871




Middle return counties have the highest incidence of unaccompanied children with 25.2% (n=56) of community representatives noting this. Only 7.7% (n=29) from high return counties report the presence of unaccompanied children. These numbers are further detailed in Table 119.


Table 119: Reported Presence of unaccompanied Children by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 14.5 126 85.5 745 100.0 871





Community representatives cited low levels of missing children among their respective bomas, with 9.0% (n=20) cited in middle return counties, 6.1% (n=23) in high return counties, and 5.5% (n=15) in low return counties. This information is detailed by county in the following Table 120.

Table 120: Reported Presence of Missing Children by County (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x































Total 6.7 58 93.3 813 100.0 871




Low return counties experience the highest levels of family support for separated children at 71.6% (n=111), as compared to 57.2% (n=83) in high return bomas, suggesting counties of high return tend to possess fewer family coping mechanisms.


Table 121: Support Network for Separated and unaccompanied Children by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Classification Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Relatives 71.6 111 68.5 100 57.2 83 65.9 294

Community Support 16.8 26 11.6 17 15.2 22 14.6 65

Live Alone 10.3 16 10.3 15 7.6 11 9.4 42

NGO 0.7 1 1.4 2 2.8 4 1.6 7

Other 0.7 1 8.2 12 17.2 25 8.5 38

Total 100.0 155 100.0 146 100.0 145 100.0 446

Cases 131 126 122 379

Community representatives confirmed in some cases that unaccompanied and separated children are able to receive education. On average, 54.6% (n=209) of unaccompanied or separated children attend school; however, respondents from high return counties noted that only 36.4% (n=43) of such children attend school. This is in contrast to counties of low return where respondents noted much higher proportions of such child categories attending school (67.4%, n=95). This information is represented in the following table.

Table 122: unaccompanied and Separated Children Who Attend School by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

School Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Yes 67.4 95 57.3 71 36.4 43 54.6 209

No 32.6 46 42.7 53 63.6 75 45.4 174

Total 100.0 141 100.0 124 100.0 118 100.0 383


7. ConCLuSIonS

The VAS has produced a vast amount of data to inform the intervention strategies of actors involved in returnee reintegration assistance in South Sudan. While the points of interest have been outlined separately in this study, it should be evident that these factors are inordinately interlinked and often crosscutting, and therefore should not be addressed in isolation.

Basic Needs and InfrastructureIt is clear from the findings that across the surveyed counties, education and health facilities, water points, and infrastructure are broadly lacking. In addition, where such services do exist, they have elicited high levels of community dissatisfaction. The lack of schools and health facilities are likely to pose negative implications for the long term reintegration capacity, health, and productivity of returnees, while the lack of police stations will impact on their immediate safety and general rule of law.

Transport links that are either altogether lacking or of poor quality result in long travel times to markets and high travel costs incurred, which are then transferred to consumers through high commodity prices. Immediate impacts mean that returnees, who may already be financially vulnerable, may be less able to afford commodities, while on a structural level, it impedes trading, livelihood possibilities, and food security.

LandIt was found that in the majority of cases in bomas surveyed, land is not being sufficiently allocated to returnees. In counties of high return, such as Yirol East in Lakes State and Aweil East in Northern Bahr el Ghazal State, allocation rates are higher than average, and a weak trend of middle and high return counties with higher land allocation reports was noted.

Overall however, the allocation of land has not matched the pace of return and has resulted in greater concentrations of returnee populations in urban areas. Not only does this present challenges to urban food security, but it presents the possibility of aggravated future urban societal and health problems associated with dense populations. Lack of land for returnees was also found to have negative impacts on their reintegration capacity, as without land people are unable to (re)establish livelihoods and settle down.

Customary land was found to be important to communities, and most prevalent in areas of low return. It was also found to be the cause of disputes between returnees and people (often soldiers) who had occupied their land in their absence. Nomadic settlements are most pronounced in counties of low return but in general, high proportions of all county types are settled permanently.

Civil Society GroupsCivil society participation appears to be strong overall, and it is especially positive to note the high presence of women and youth associations. The pronounced presence of civil society groups is evident across a broad section of communities (including farmers and religious leaders), however the effects of such groups and the consequences of female participation have yet to be assessed. In addition, despite these promising grass root trends, the integration of women to traditional and national socio-political positions of status remains to be achieved.

LivelihoodsThe vast amount of the population is dependent on some form of crop farming, livestock rearing, or fishing. The findings indicate that inputs to all three livelihood areas are severely lacking and act as significant barriers to productivity. As such, communities highlighted a lack of trained, skilled labour; a lack of natural resources such as water and land, and a lack of physical assets such as tools, roads, seeds, and fishing gear. While support is available to farmers from communal farms, private businesses, NGOs, UN agencies, and government bodies, there is still a significant lack of access to credit services. Poor transport links and lack of market access were noted as further livelihood difficulties.


Populations who depend on crop farming and livestock rearing, in particular, are highly vulnerable to food insecurity due to the prevalence of crop and livestock disease, natural hazards such as drought and flooding, poor market access, and conflict, which vary by county. Food insecurity is a perennial and serious concern throughout all counties of return, although vulnerability to hunger shocks is most evident in areas of high return. Coping strategies vary seasonally and mainly comprise of altered diet and lower consumption habits, with potentially long-term impacts on health especially for children.

WASHLack of access and availability of water is a serious and far-reaching issue across surveyed areas. It is both a proximate and underlying determinant of livelihood security and productivity, health outcomes, seasonal migration, and local conflict. Universal water access is not widespread and is poor across types of county; long distance to water is a strong barrier to water access, but it is the actual lack of water quantity itself that presents the most stringent barrier. As such, water is primarily sourced from unreliable outlets such as boreholes, streams, and rivers which vary in availability according to area and season leaving communities highly susceptible to poor health outcomes and increased insecurity. Seasonal migration is therefore a common response to water shortages, undertaken by almost half of the populations in low and high return counties. A positive correlation was established between counties with low water access and local conflict, as well as a causal relationship between low water access for cattle grazers and conflict.

There is a general lack of sanitation and hygiene education, but a positive correlation was found between those areas that had received sanitation and health hygiene, and those that used latrines. Household latrines are predominantly of the simple pit latrine form and ventilated latrines are much more common as public services.

HealthOf the three healthcare systems included in the survey questions (PHCUs, PHCCs, and hospitals), there was found to be a widespread shortage of qualified medical practitioners, particularly doctors, and high levels of dissatisfaction concerning drug availability, availability of qualified medical staff, and referrals. As to be expected, quality of facilities and waste disposal management was highest in hospitals. Malaria is overwhelmingly the primary cause of illness across counties, followed by pneumonia and diarrhea. It is significant to note that counties with the highest levels of returnees have also recorded elevated instances of cholera and meningitis.

Immunization is theoretically provided at all three types of health facility however the report findings evidence a high percentage of PHCCs that do not offer immunization services, while full immunization packages for children were found to be only sporadically available. The lack of universal, routine immunization coverage indicates high vulnerability across child and adult populations, who are left unprotected from preventable diseases. Government support for healthcare systems is third after NGOs and community services suggesting an area for further national commitment and investment.

EducationThe study found the most overwhelming education need to be more trained teachers, as the current deficit is causing widespread dissatisfaction. The lack of educational infrastructure is more pronounced in areas of high return as returnees are aggravating already stretched education services. Inability to access primary education is affecting returnee reintegration efforts and undermines their ability to adjust to local systems. Without basic skills and a level of English language proficiency, this lack of education will also negatively affect longer term livelihood prospects.

There are four main curriculums currently in use as well as a variety of languages used for teaching. While the South Sudanese curriculum is by far the most prevalent, differences in school cycle lengths between the Ugandan and Kenyan curriculums, and the South Sudanese curriculum do not bode well for a comprehensive education base, making compatibility with higher education systems more difficult.

The findings also highlight pronounced gender inequalities, with more boys than girls enrolled at schools. Boys were also found to engage in longer periods of education, as drop out rates for girls were consistently


higher across areas surveyed. While the main reasons for female drop outs are due to early marriage and ‘family decisions’, it is significant to note that distance of school is a common explanation for withdrawal. The consequences of such gender differences inevitably result in higher rates of female illiteracy with long term impacts on female participation and success in socioeconomic activities.

SecurityFood insecurity is a pressing issue across all surveyed areas and remains the main external threat to those surveyed. Epidemics and natural hazards followed by armed conflict are other perceived threats. Local conflict was generally found to be more pressing than external conflict. Water and land-based conflicts are other significant causes of insecurity, the latter being most prevalent in areas of high return.

The most common response to conflict was registered as being reporting cases to the police; however, as evidenced earlier, police stations are not necessarily easily accessible or available to communities bringing the effectiveness of this recourse into question. Temporary migration is recorded as another response strategy to insecurity, but this is associated with further risks and insecurity, especially for women as rape cases along migratory routes are common, and therefore potentially increases vulnerability.

Sexual and gender based violence responses show that women feel insecure both within the household and in public spaces, whereby domestic violence and rape are significant threats and most prevalent in areas of medium and high return. Although cases are reported to police and traditional courts, there is a worryingly high proportion of women who do not report abuse directed at them or their children at all.


8. reCoMMendATIonS

Many of the factors affecting returnee reintegration are based on existing inequalities or deficiencies; addressing underlying issues that affect communities beyond the returnee population would provide a solid foundation in facilitating reintegration needs. Based on these findings the following recommendations are suggested:

• Findings strongly indicate that improved access to inputs in subsistence farming, livestock and fishing sectors should be a priority.

Inputs include pushing for timely and fair allocation of land, as well the knowhow and agro-inputs necessary for crop production, livestock rearing, and fishing. By coupling distribution of inputs with enterprise training and financial literacy, returnees can be provided with the opportunity to capitalize on an underutilized sector and a plethora of market gaps.

• Improved market access is essential to reduce the time and costs of travel and commodities. Infrastructure projects to create, extend, and improve roads should be prioritised, with special efforts to manage roads so that they are useable in the rainy season.

• Reliable water access and availability is central to improved health, livelihood, and security needs. Efforts at extending borehole provision and training in better water management would be helpful starting points. Further trainings on the proper purification techniques of water sources can provide more sources of safe drinking water.

• Improved social protection mechanisms and safety nets are needed to protect communities from hunger shocks. Nutrition schemes using schools as a distributing mechanism would help in targeting a proportion of children. This may encourage more children, especially girls, to stay in school but broader approaches would be needed to catch the proportions of children that do not or cannot attend school.

• In assessing land allocation, care should be taken to undertake land assessments to ascertain how suitable it may be for the purposes of either cattle rearing or crop farming.Details of tenure type and length should also be assessed in anticipation of potential grievances in the long term.

• A focus should be placed on agriculture and animal husbandry programming that emphasizes maximization of resources. By equipping farmers with the knowhow to maximize resources for the highest level of income, researched areas will see an increase in livelihood and less stress on the scarcity of resources.New techniques and technologies with regards to animal husbandry can help prevent farmers from turning to migration as a last-ditch means to ensure the survival of cattle and other livestock. By providing the ability to circumvent migration, tensions that arise between tribes and clans over the sharing of resources can be relieved. Further, increased productivity including milk production and healthy reproduction will lead to increased incomes and nutrition among returnees.

• Access to credit or financial support would be an important boost to productivity and enable farmers to invest in much needed physical assets. Micro finance, Village Savings and Loans programs, and revolving lending schemes should all be considered as ways to increase access to credit and financial support, as well as promote and develop a savings and responsible repayment culture among South Sudan’s returnee population.

• Efforts to provide universal and complete immunization programmes should be strongly made in order that child and adult populations do not succumb to preventable diseases.

This includes sensitization on the benefits and availability of immunizations, as well as increased supply of vaccinations at health facilities across the country. Further, trainings and supplies should be provided to ensure that every boma has access to a facility that can provide immunizations to both children and adults.

• An integrated approach should be considered for cross-cutting issues such as social norms on gender inequality, school attendance, and infrastructure.


Where issues interlink, efforts need to be made by donors, national bodies, and NGOs to coordinate activities to best realise multiple aims, and to provide comprehensive and dynamic approaches that can incorporate programming such as health and WASH with these other social issues.

• Teacher training programmes need to be scaled up in order to address the current deficit.

Strengthening and extending partnerships with NGO and churches to establish or reinforce outreach training programmes would be encouraged.

• Efforts should be made to lobby for standardized primary school curriculums.

Same length teaching cycles and a clear policy on teaching language should be agreed on to ensure equal opportunities for children’s future education or livelihood needs. Returnees are returning to a variety of systems and a breadth of language mediums to complicate smooth reintegration into the education system. State and national education ministries should coordinate on this.

• Longitudinal research regarding the effects of civil society groups on local communities would be helpful in ascertaining the long term impacts of female and youth participation, and would also be a useful means of measuring returnee integration to their community.

Understanding the role of civil society groups can help NGOs, government and international counterparts to better understand the realities of reintegration into Sudan Sudan.

Lake

s

Cen

tral

Equa

tori

a

East

ern

Equa

tori

a

Upp

erN

ile

Wes

tern

Bah

r el

Gha

zal

Uni

tyN

orth

ern

Bah

r el

Gha

zal

Jong

lei

War

rap

Wes

tern

Equa

tori

a

ETH

IOP

IA

CEN

TRA

LA

FRIC

AN

REP

UB

LIC

DEM

OC

RA

TIC

REP

UB

LIC

OF

CO

NG

OK

ENY

A

UG

AN

DA

Mor

obo

Kaj

o-K

eji

Lain

yaYe

i

Juba

Tere

keka

Mag

wi

Ikot

os

Kap

oeta

Sout

hBu

diTo

rit

Kap

oeta

Nor

thLa

pon

Kap

oeta

East

Aw

eria

l

Yiro

lW

est

Wul

u

Rum

bek

East

Cue

ibet

Rum

bek

Nor

th

Rum

bek

Cen

tre

Yiro

lEa

st

Aw

eil

Sout

h

Aw

eil

Cen

tre

Aw

eil W

est

Aw

eil

Nor

thA

wei

lEa

st

Pany

ijar

May

endi

tLeer

Koch

May

omG

uit

Rub

kona

Abi

emnh

om

Pari

ang

Aby

ei

Tonj

Sout

h

Tonj

East

Tonj

Nor

th

Gog

rial

East

Gog

r ial

Wes

tTwic

Wau

Jur

Riv

er

Rag

a

Mar

idi

Mun

dri

Wes

t

Mun

dri

East

Ibba

Yam

bio

Nza

ra

Mvo

lo

Ezo

Tam

bura

Nag

ero

Bor

Sout

hPi

bor

Twic

East

Poch

alla

Duk

Uro

rA

kobo

Ayo

d

Nyi

rol

Can

al(K

hor

Fulu

s)Fa

ngak

Ula

ngM

aiw

utLu

akpi

ny/N

asir

Long

ochu

k

Pany

ikan

gMal

akal

Balie

t

Fash

oda

Mel

ut

Man

yo

Ren

k

Mab

an

VAS 2

012:

Asse

ssm

ent T

imel

ine b

y Cou

nty

Lege

nd

Mon

th Febr

uary

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

011

022

055

Kilo

met

ers

Annex I


Annex II

SupplementAry lISt of tAbleStable of Contents1. Land ......................................................................................................................................................1

2. Shelter ...................................................................................................................................................1

3. Livelihoods ............................................................................................................................................23.1 Crop Farming ............................................................................................................................................... 23.1.1 Support .................................................................................................................................................... 23.1.2 Market ..................................................................................................................................................... 53.2 Livestock ...................................................................................................................................................... 63.2.1 Support ..................................................................................................................................................... 63.3 Fisheries 8

4. Health .................................................................................................................................................10

5. Water, Health and Sanitation ...............................................................................................................135.1.1 Access 135.1.2 Seasonal Migration ................................................................................................................................. 135.2.1 Sanitation ............................................................................................................................................... 15

6. Education ............................................................................................................................................166.1 System 166.2 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................ 176. 3 Enrolment and Dropout ............................................................................................................................ 186.4 Adult Education ......................................................................................................................................... 19

7. Security ...............................................................................................................................................207.1 Responses to external and local conflict ................................................................................................... 207.2 Unaccompanied, Missing, Separated Children .......................................................................................... 227.3 Sexual and Gender Based Violence ........................................................................................................... 227.4 Rule of Law Institutions ............................................................................................................................. 23

list of tablesTable 1: Percentages of Land Ownerships by County Classification, by Boma .................................................................. 1Table 2: Percentages of Shelter Types by County Classification, by Boma ........................................................................ 1Table 3: Percentage of Main Crops Grown by County Classification, by County Classification ......................................... 2Table 4: Percentages of Seed Sources for Food Crops Grown by County Classification .................................................... 2Table 5: Percentages of Types of Support Available to Farmers ....................................................................................... 3Table 6: Support Providers for Agricultural Extension Services ......................................................................... 3Table 7: Numbers of Bomas in States where Private Enterprise in Supporting Crop Production by State ........ 3Table 8: Numbers of Bomas by State Where Extension Services are provided by the Community by State .... 4Table 9: Support Providers for Cooperatives ..................................................................................................... 4Table 10: Support Providers to Wholesale Traders ........................................................................................... 4Table 11: Percentage of Bomas Selling Crops by County Classification and boma ............................................ 5Table 12: Crops Sold by County Classification ................................................................................................... 5Table 13: Percentages of Needs for Farming by County Classification ............................................................. 5Table 14: Specific Market Accessibility Issues Affecting Crop Production ......................................................... 6Table 15: Percentage of Products Sold from Livestock Production by County Classification ............................ 6


Table 16: Support for Credit Facilities ............................................................................................................... 6Table 17: Support for Slaughterhouse ............................................................................................................... 7Table 18: Support for Veterinary Services ......................................................................................................... 7Table 19: Support for Cross Breeding ................................................................................................................ 7Table 20: Support for Cooperatives ................................................................................................................... 7Table 21: Lack of Inputs for Fisheries by State .................................................................................................. 8Table 22: Reasons for Market Accessibility for Fisheries Issues by County Classification ................................. 8Table 23: Reasons for Market Accessibility Issues for Fisheries by State .......................................................... 9Table 24: How Persons get to Health Facilities in Bomas where there are no Health Facilities ...................... 10Table 25: Health Facility Specifics .................................................................................................................... 10Table 26: Reasons for Not Attending a Health Facility When Sick ................................................................... 11Table 27: Likely Disease Outbreaks in Bomas as Reported by Health Facilities ............................................... 11Table 28: Ways Health Facilities can be Assisted to Cope with Outbreaks ...................................................... 12Table 29: Immunization Campaigns in Catchment Areas Where Routine Immunization is Not Conducted ... 12Table 30: Health Facilities Conducting Health Education Sessions in Bomas .................................................. 12Table 31: Water Sources Used at a Fee ........................................................................................................... 13Table 32: Water Sources Accessible to All Households in Boma ..................................................................... 13Table 33: Persons in the Boma Practice Seasonal Migration by County Classification .................................... 13Table 34: Conflict Issues on the Migratory Route due to Competition for Water by County Classification ... 13Table 35: Conflict Issues on the Migratory Route by State due to acceess to water ....................................... 14Table 36: Bomas with Latrines by County Classification ................................................................................. 15Table 37: Persons use Latrines ........................................................................................................................ 15Table 38: Presence of Schools in Boma by County Classification .................................................................... 16Table 39: Standards of Primary Schools by County Classification ................................................................... 16Table 40: Languages of Instruction in Schools ................................................................................................. 16Table 41: Mean Average Annual School Fees by Type and County Classification ........................................... 16Table 42: Whether Fees Are Required to Attend School by County Classification .......................................... 17Table 43: Repercussions for Student when Parents Have Difficulty Paying School Fees ................................. 17Table 44: Non-Potable Water in Schools by County Classification .................................................................. 17Table 45: Other School Facility Assets ............................................................................................................. 17Table 46: Mean Average Percentage of Children Attending School by County Classification ......................... 18Table 47: Ratio of Dropouts to Enrollment by County Classification by County Classification ........................ 18Table 48: Main Reasons for Boys Dropping Out of School .............................................................................. 18Table 49: Main Reasons for Girls Dropping Out of School .............................................................................. 18Table 50: Disabled Children Enrolled at the School by County Classification .................................................. 19Table 51: School Can Accommodate All Children in the Catchment Area by County Classification ................ 19Table 52: Children Leave School because it Conflicts with Family Interests by County Classification ............. 19Table 53: Adult Education by County Classification......................................................................................... 19Table 54: Alternative Education Programs in School or Boma by County Classification ................................. 19Table 55: Reported Responses to External Armed Conflict by County Classification ...................................... 20Table 56: Reported Responses to Drought by County Classification ............................................................... 20Table 57: Reported Responses to Floods by County Classification .................................................................. 20Table 58: Reported Responses to Hunger by County Classification ................................................................ 21Table 59: Reported Responses to Domestic Violence by County Classification .............................................. 21Table 60: Reported Responses to Crop Disease by County Classification ....................................................... 21Table 61: Reported Responses to Livestock Disease by County Classification ................................................ 22Table 62: Reported Unaccompanied, Missing, and Separated Children by County Classification .................. 22Table 63: Women Feel Insecure Outside of the Home by County Classification ............................................. 22Table 64: Reasons for Women being Insecure Outside of the Home by County Classification ....................... 23Table 65: Responses to whether Rape/Sexual Violence Against Women have been Reported in the Boma, by County Classification ................................................................................................................. 23Table 66: Responses as to whether Rape/Sexual Violence is Common in the Boma, by County Classification ................................................................................................................. 23Table 67: Number of Bomas that have a Traditional Boma Court ................................................................... 23Table 68: Judicial Court Accessible to the Boma by County Classification ...................................................... 24

Village Assessment Survey Report (2013) | A- 1

1. lAnd

table 1: Percentages of Land Ownerships by County Classification, by Boma (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Individual 9.3 37 16.1 54 24.7 169 18.3 260

Communal 35.4 141 33.4 112 28.1 192 31.4 445

Ancestral 52.2 208 47.7 160 44.7 306 47.5 674

Leased 0.2 1 0.6 2 1.3 9 0.8 12

Informal 0.7 3 1.4 5 0.7 5 0.9 13

Other 2.1 8 0.6 2 0.4 3 0.9 13

Total 100.0 398 100.0 335 100.0 684 100.0 1417

Cases 268 219 374 861

2. Shelter

table 2: Percentages of Shelter Types by County Classification, by Boma (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low Return Middle Return High retturn Total

% % % %Tukul 72.0 66.5 60.4 65.2Cottage—Brick Wall with Thatched Roofing 18.0 23.6 27 23.7Cottage—Mud Wall with Iron Sheet Roofing 7.4 8.2 11.1 9.3Permanent House—Concrete Wall with Iron Roofing 2.4 1.5 1.3 1.7Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Cases 264 214 368 846

A-2 | Village Assessment Survey Report (2013)

3. lIvelIhoodS

3.1 Crop fArmIngtable 3: Percentage of Main Crops Grown by County Classification, by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Maize 19.4 244 13.9 143 22.6 342 19.2 729

Sorghum 19.5 246 19.6 202 19.5 295 19.5 743

Sesame 13.8 174 15.5 160 14.1 214 14.4 548

Groundnuts 17.8 224 17.2 177 18.0 272 17.7 673

Vegetables 8.7 110 12.4 128 13.6 206 11.7 444

Millet 7.5 95 7.5 77 4.6 69 6.3 241

Cassava 8.1 102 8.9 92 3.5 53 6.5 247

Rice 1.4 17 0.6 6 1.8 27 1.3 50

Other Food Crops 3.8 48 4.4 45 2.4 36 3.4 129

Total 100.0 1,260 100.0 1,030 100.0 1,514 100.0 3,804

Cases 270 222 372 864

3.1.1 SUPPORT table 4: Percentages of Seed Sources for Food Crops Grown by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low Return Middle return High return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Previous Harvest 48.0 256 52.8 217 51.5 345 50.7 818Market 28.3 151 22.3 92 20.9 140 23.7 383Ministry of Agriculture 3.3 18 2.9 12 2.3 16 2.8 46Development Agencies 11.6 62 12.4 51 13.6 91 12.6 204Borrowed 8.1 43 9.0 37 11.3 76 9.6 156Other 0.5 3 0.4 2 0.1 1 0.3 6Total 100.0 533 100.0 411 100.0 669 100.0 1,613Cases 266 222 361 849


table 5: Percentages of Types of Support Available to Farmers (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x % % of cases

Communal Farming 446 51.6 73.3

Credit Facilities 40 4.6 6.6

Extension Services 213 24.7 35.0

Co-operatives 116 13.4 19.1

Whole Sale Traders 38 4.4 6.2

Others 11 1.3 1.8

Total 864 100.0 141.9

table 6: Support Providers for Agricultural Extension Services (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x %

Government 29 11.7

FAO 45 18.2

NGO 96 38.8

Private Business 30 12.1

Diaspora 0 0

Community 47 19

Others 0 0

Total 247 100

table 7: Numbers of Bomas in States where Private Enterprise in Supporting Crop Production by State (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

State Name Support to Communal Farming

Support to Credit Facilities

Support to Wholesale Traders

Support to Cooperatives

Central Equatoria 3 3 6 2

Lakes 15 4 9 8

Northern Bahr El Ghazal 1 1 0 2

Unity 41 6 7 18

Warrap 3 0 0 0

Western Bahr El Ghazal 3 0 1 1

Western Equatoria 3 0 1 1

Total 69 14 24 32


table 8: Numbers of Bomas by State Where Extension Services are provided by the Community by State (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

State Name Extension Services by Community

Central Equatoria 3

Eastern Equatoria 2

Lakes 4

Northern Bahr El Ghazal 26

Unity 8

Warrap 2

Western Bahr El Ghazal 2

Total 47

table 9: Support Providers for Cooperatives (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x %

Government 4 8.5

FAO 1 2.1

NGO 2 4.2


Diaspora 0 0.0

Community 16 34.0

Others 0 0.0

Total 47 100.0

table 10: Support Providers to Wholesale Traders (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x %

Government 6 4.4

FAO 9 6.6

NGO 20 14.7


Diaspora 0 0.0

Community 68 50.0

Others 1 0.7

Total 136 100.0


3.1.2 MARkET table 11: Percentage of Bomas Selling Crops by County Classification and boma (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low Return Bomas Middle Return Bomas High Return Bomas Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 38.6 102 35.1 76 51.2 190 43.2 368

Yes 61.3 162 64.8 140 48.7 181 56.7 483

Total 100.0 264 100.0 216 100.0 371 100.0 851

table 12: Crops Sold by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low Return Bomas Middle Return Bomas High Return Bomas Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Maize 14.9 91 13.8 69 15.7 81 14.8 241

Sorghum 24.0 146 19.4 97 17.5 90 20.5 333

Sesame 16.3 99 16.8 84 22.8 117 18.5 300

Groundnuts 23.2 141 25.0 125 29.4 151 25.7 417

Millet 5.7 35 7.4 37 4.0 21 5.7 93

Cassava 11.7 71 13.4 67 5.0 26 10.1 164

Rice 1.8 11 1.2 6 3.3 17 2.1 34

Other 2.1 13 2.8 14 1.9 10 2.2 37

Total 100.0 607 100.0 499 100.0 513 100.0 1,619

Cases 167 144 181 492

table 13: Percentages of Needs for Farming by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Need Low Return Bomas Middle Return Bomas High Return Bomas Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Land 1.6 24 2.8 30 2.0 41 2.1 95

Seed 16.5 234 16.1 173 14.4 294 15.4 701

Tools 17.1 243 15.5 167 16.4 335 16.4 745

Fertilizers 6.8 97 7.1 76 8.6 176 7.7 349

Labor 5.0 71 4.0 43 2.7 57 3.7 171

Training 11.7 166 12.0 129 11.3 232 11.6 527

Other 0.6 9 0.4 5 0.1 3 0.3 17

Tractor 15.6 222 14.1 152 16.2 331 15.5 705

Compost Fertilizers 5.7 82 7.4 80 7.9 162 7.1 324

Ox Plough 14.2 202 13.9 149 11.6 238 13.0 589

Irrigation Equipment 4.7 67 6.2 67 8.4 173 6.7 307

Total 100.0 1,417 100.0 1,071 100.0 2,042 100.0 4,530

Cases 270 218 372 860


table 14: Specific Market Accessibility Issues Affecting Crop Production (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Issue n=x %

Transport 305 33.5

Credit Facility 103 11.3

Cooperatives 85 9.3

Storage Facility 114 12.5

Distance to Market 303 33.3

Total 910 100

3.2 lIveStoCktable 15: Percentage of Products Sold from Livestock Production by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Action Low Return Middle Return High Return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Sell Milk 34.2 168 36.6 122 36.8 299 36.0 589

Sell Milk Products 13.8 68 16.8 56 20.2 164 17.6 288

Sell Hides 11.4 56 5.7 19 6.4 52 7.7 127

Sell Meat 31.9 157 34.2 114 29.1 237 31.0 508

Sell Wool 1.8 9 0.6 2 0.6 5 0.9 16

Sell Other Products 6.7 33 6.0 20 6.7 55 6.6 108

Total 100.0 491 100.0 333 100.0 812 100.0 1636

Cases 230 158 331 719

3.2.1 SUPPORTtable 16: Support for Credit Facilities (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source n=x %

Ministry of Agriculture 3 11.5

Development Agencies 7 26.9


Diaspora 0 0.0

Credit Facility Provided By Other 1 3.8

Total 26 100.0


table 17: Support for Slaughterhouse (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source n=x %


Development agencies 11 21.5


Diaspora 0 0.0

Other 2 3.9

Total 51 100.0

table 18: Support for Veterinary Services (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source n=x %




Diaspora 0 0.0

Others 12 3.5

Total 340 100.0

table 19: Support for Cross Breeding (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source n=x %




Diaspora 1 3.4

Other 1 3.4

Total 29 100.0

table 20: Support for Cooperatives (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Source n=x %


Development agencies 11 18.6


Diaspora 1 1.6

Others 13 22.0

Total 59 100.0


3.3

fISh

er

IeS

tabl

e 21

: Lac

k of

Inpu

ts fo

r Fi

sher

ies

by S

tate

(So

urce

: Bom

a Q

uest

ionn

aire

)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..

Caus

eCE

QEE

QLA

KN

BEG

UN

IW

ARW

BEG

WEQ

Tota

l

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x

High

Cos

t22

.22

0.0

034

.627

36.1

9524

.068

12.3

1222

.210

25.0

727

.222

1

Loca

lly N

ot A

vaila

ble

22.2

242

.83

20.5

1636

.596

33.2

9443

.342

33.3

1525

.07

33.9

%27

5

Labo

r0.

00

0.0

08.

97

0.7

214

.441

2.0

20.

00

7.1

26.

654

Trai

ning

44.4

457

.14

32.0

2525

.467

27.2

7738

.137

33.3

1542

.812

29.7

241

Oth

er11

.11

0.0

03.

83

1.1

31.

03

4.1

411

.15

0.0

02.

319

Tota

l10

0.0

910

0.0

710

0.0

7810

0.0

263

100.

028

310

0.0

9710

0.0

4510

0.0

2810

0.0

810

Case

s4

540

130

146

5425

1341

7

tabl

e 22

: Rea

sons

for

Mar

ket A

cces

sibi

lity

for

Fish

erie

s Is

sues

by

Cou

nty

Cla

ssifi

catio

n (S

ourc

e: Bo

ma

Que

stio

nnai

re)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

Low

retu

rnM

iddl

e re

turn

High

retu

rnTo

tal

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

Poor

Tra

nspo

rt39

.350

35.8

4836

.591

37.0

189

No

Cred

it Fa

cilit

y7.

810

11.9

168.

822

9.4

48

Coop

erati

ves

7.8

107.

410

5.6

146.

634

Not

Acc

essib

le3.

14

2.9

47.

218

5.1

26

Dist

ance

to M

arke

t38

.549

31.3

4233

.383

34.1

174

Not

Ava

ilabl

e3.

14

10.4

148.

421

7.6

39

Tota

l10

0.0

127

100.

013

410

0.0

249

100.

051

0

Case

s73

6114

427

8


tabl

e 23

: Rea

sons

for

Mar

ket A

cces

sibi

lity

Issu

es fo

r Fi

sher

ies

by S

tate

, (So

urce

: Bom

a Q

uest

ionn

aire

)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..

Rea

son

CEQ

EEQ

LAK

NBE

GU

NI

WAR

WBE

GW

EQTo

tal

%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

Poor

Tra

nspo

rt40

.04

41.6

534

.628

37.8

4832

.056

60.9

2831

.09

36.7

1137

.118

9

No

Cred

it Fa

cilit

y10

.01

8.3

111

.19

9.4

128.

515

2.1

117

.25

13.3

49.

448

Coop

erati

ves

20.0

216

.62

8.6

72.

33

9.1

162.

11

3.4

16.

62

6.6

34

Not

Acc

essib

le0.

00

0.0

07.

46

6.3

86.

211

0.0

03.

41

0.0

05.

126

Dist

ance

to M

arke

t30

.03

25.0

329

.624

32.2

4138

.868

34.7

1634

.410

30.0

934

.117

4

Not

Ava

ilabl

e0.

00

8.30

18.

67

11.8

155.

109

0.0

010

.33

13.3

47.

639

Oth

ers

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

0

Tota

l10

0.0

1010

0.0

1210

0.0

8110

0.0

127

100.

017

510

0.0

4610

0.0

2910

0.0

3010

0.0

510

Case

s 4

532

74

106

28 1

712

278


4. heAlth

table 24: How Persons get to Health Facilities in Bomas where there are no Health Facilities (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Method n=x %

Cycle 99 20.9

Walking 349 73.6

Vehicles 21 4.4

Boats 3 0.6

Other 2 0.4

Total 474 100.0

table 25: Health Facility Specifics (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Facility Specifics Hospital Primary Health Care Centre Primary Health Care Unit

No Yes No Yes No Yes

n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x %

Waiting Area 1 6.7 14 93.3 7 8.1 80 91.9 74 21.6 268 78.4

Registration Space 1 6.7 14 93.3 26 30.2 60 69.8 158 45.7 188 54.3

Consultation Room 0 0.0 15 100.0 9 10.3 78 89.7 84 24.4 261 75.7

Outpatient Room 3 21.4 11 78.6 19 21.8 68 78.2 130 37.6 216 62.4

Drug Dispensary 0 0.0 15 100.0 9 10.3 78 89.7 98 28.4 247 71.6

Laboratory 2 13.3 13 86.7 41 47.1 46 52.9 317 92.4 26 7.6

Maternity Room 3 20.0 12 80.0 28 32.6 58 67.4 202 58.7 142 41.3

Emergency Room 5 33.3 10 66.7 47 54.7 39 45.3 308 89.2 37 10.7

Inpatient Room 1 6.7 14 93.3 35 40.2 52 59.8 308 89.2 37 10.7

Health Education and Immunization Room 3 20.0 12 80.0 26 29.9 61 70.1 207 59.7 140 40.4

Storage Room 0 0.0 15 100.0 20 23.8 64 76.2 138 41.2 197 58.8

Administrative Office 2 13.3 13 86.7 55 65.5 29 34.5 281 84.1 53 15.9


table 26: Reasons for Not Attending a Health Facility When Sick (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reason n=x %

Distance 76 22.6

No Drugs 98 29.1

Insecurity 9 2.6

Expensive 11 3.2

No Qualified Personnel 76 22.6

Ignorance 28 8.3

Traditional Medicine 28 8.3

Other 10 2.9

Total 336 100.0

table 27: Likely Disease Outbreaks in Bomas as Reported by Health Facilities (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Disease Type Low return Middle return High return

% n=x % n=x % n=x

Cholera 20.2 18 12.5 13 30.1 44

Measles 32.5 29 25.9 27 22.6 33

Meningitis 15.7 14 25.0 26 23.9 35

Yellow Fever 6.7 6 18.2 19 13.7 20

Malaria 7.8 7 5.7 6 2.7 4

Diarrhoea 8.9 8 4.8 5 2.0 3

kala-Azar 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.3 2

Whooping Cough 3.3 3 0.9 1 2.0 3

Typhoid 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.6 1

Others 4.4 4 6.7 7 0.6 1

Total 100.0 89 100.0 104 100.0 146

Cases 53 74 68


table 28: Ways Health Facilities can be Assisted to Cope with Outbreaks (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Assitance n=x %

Provide Training 325 22.3

Public Awareness 242 16.6

Communication 167 11.4

Transport 246 16.9

Referrals 181 12.4

Fridge for Storing Medicines 179 12.0

Drug 38 2.6

Extension or new facility 40 2.7

Pay Salaries 3 0.2

Other laboratory equipment 11 0.7

Staff 14 0.9

Others 9 0.6

Total 1,455 100.0

table 29: Immunization Campaigns in Catchment Areas Where Routine Immunization is Not Conducted (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Campaigns n=x %

No 24 26.3

Yes 67 73.6

Total 91 100.0

table 30: Health Facilities Conducting Health Education Sessions in Bomas (Source: Health Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Education n=x %

No 114 25.0

Yes 342 75.0

Total 456 100.0


5. WAter, heAlth And SAnItAtIon

5.1.1 ACCESStable 31: Water Sources Used at a Fee (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Fee n=x %

No 612 72.0

Yes 237 27.9

Total 849 100.0

table 32: Water Sources Accessible to All Households in Boma (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Households Low return Middle return High return Total

% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 82.2 218 75.9 164 71.6 265 76.0 647

Yes 17.7 47 24.0 52 28.3 105 23.9 204

Total 100.0 265 100.0 216 100.0 370 100.0 851

5.1.2 SEASONAL MIGRATIONtable 33: Persons in the Boma Practice Seasonal Migration by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Migration Low Return Middle Return High return Total

No 49.8 128 62.1 133 50.9 189 53.4 450

Yes 50.1 129 37.8 81 49.0 182 46.5 392

Total 100.0 257 100.0 214 100.0 371 100.0 842

table 34: Conflict Issues on the Migratory Route due to Competition for Water by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Water Low Return Middle Return High Return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 75.2 91 52.0 38 76.2 135 71.1 264Yes 24.7 30 47.9 35 23.7 42 28.8 107Total 100.0 121 100.0 73 100.0 177 100.0 371


tabl

e 35

: Con

flict

Issu

es o

n th

e M

igra

tory

Rou

te b

y St

ate

due

to a

ccee

ss t

o w

ater

(So

urce

: Bom

a Q

uest

ionn

aire

)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..

CES

EES

LAK

NBE

G U

NI

WAR

WBE

G W

ES T

otal

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x%

n=x

%n=

x

No

33.3

01

75.0

341

.60

2096

.20

5167

.40

110

75.0

6094

.70

1810

0.0

171

.16

264

Yes

66.6

02

25.0

158

.30

283.

702

32.5

053

25.0

205.

201

0.0

028

.84

107

Tota

l10

0.0

310

0.0

410

0.0

4810

0.0

5310

0.0

163

100.

080

100.

019

100.

01

100.

037

1


5.2.1 SANITATIONtable 36: Bomas with Latrines by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Latrines Low Return Middle Return High Return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 67.3 171 56.3 116 70.4 255 65.9 542Yes 32.6 83 43.6 90 29.5 107 34.0 280Total 100.0 254 100.0 206 100.0 362 100.0 822

table 37: Persons use Latrines (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Latrines n=x %No 648 81.9Yes 143 18.0Total 791 100.0


6. eduCAtIon

6.1 SyStemtable 38: Presence of Schools in Boma by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

School Low return Middle return High return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 15.1 41 15.0 33 38.5 144 25.2 218Yes 84.8 230 85.0 187 61.5 230 74.8 647Total 100.0 271 100.0 22 100.0 374 100.0 865

table 39: Standards of Primary Schools by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Standard Low return Middle return High return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Below 4 7.6 37 6.5 21 7.1 31 7.1 89Up to 4 29.6 144 25.0 80 23.3 102 26.2 326Up to 6 36.0 175 28.8 92 35.5 155 34.0 422Up to 8 16.8 82 37.3 119 20.8 91 23.5 292Other 9.8 48 2.1 7 13.0 57 9.0 112Total 100.0 486 100.0 319 100.0 436 100.0 1,241

table 40: Languages of Instruction in Schools (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x % responses % casesArabic 85 3.91 6.69

English 1,256 57.77 98.9

Local 833 38.32 65.59Total 2,174 100.0 171.18

table 41: Mean Average Annual School Fees by Type and County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

County Classification Registra-tion Fees

School Fees Exam Fees Uniform

FeesMainte-

nance Fees Feeding Fees Other Fees

Low Return 10 40 14 62 19 38 9Medium Return 20 64 28 53 42 1,137 5High Return 9 69 10 49 29 320 25Average Overall 12 52 14 50 26 352 11


table 42: Whether Fees Are Required to Attend School by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Pay Fees Low Return Middle Return High Return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 8.23 39 5.28 17 2.54 11 5.45 67Yes 91.77 435 94.72 305 97.46 422 94.55 1,162Total 100.0 474 100.0 322 100.0 433 100.0 1,229

table 43: Repercussions for Student when Parents Have Difficulty Paying School Fees (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Repercussion n=x % response % casesChild is Suspended 345 27.96 31.74Child is Dismissed 24 1.94 2.21Child is Not Penalized 617 50.0 56.76Child is told to work in kind 107 8.67 9.84Child is Given other penalty 141 11.43 12.97Total 1,234 100.0 113.52

6.2 InfrAStruCturetable 44: Non-Potable Water in Schools by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low return Middle return High return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Non-potable water in the school (Yes) 20.0 98 21.2 69 17.6 78 19.5 245Total 100.0 490 100.0 326 100.0 443 100.0 1,259Hand washing points present (Yes) 77.5 79 77.0 57 69.2 63 74.5 199Total 100.0 102 100.0 74 100.0 91 100.0 267Hand washing points near the latrines (Yes) 55.4 56 67.1 49 65.9 58 62.2 163Total 100.0 101 100.0 73 100.0 88 100.0 262

table 45: Other School Facility Assets (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

No Yes Totaln=x % n=x % n=x %

School Furniture 653 51.7 609 48.3 1,262 100Play/Game Area 375 29.6 894 70.5 1,269 100Sports Equipment 738 59.0 512 41 1,250 100First Aid Equipment 1,202 96.9 39 3.1 1,241 100


6. 3 enrolment And dropouttable 46: Mean Average Percentage of Children Attending School by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low Return Medium Return High Return Overall

Mean Average Percentage of All Children Attending School 60.5 63.6 64.4 62.9

Mean Average Percentage of Girl Children Attending School 46.3 49.5 49.1 48.3

table 47: Ratio of Dropouts to Enrollment by County Classification by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Ratio of Male Dropouts to Enrollment

Ratio of Female Dropouts to Enrollment

Overall Ratio of Dropouts to Enrollment

Low Return 8.0% 11.5% 8.7%Medium Return 9.6% 12.8% 10.2%High Return 9.8% 14.6% 11.0%

table 48: Main Reasons for Boys Dropping Out of School (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x % responses % casesHigh School Fees 207 7.9 17.5Distance 761 28.9 64.5Conflict 103 3.9 8.7Language 17 0.7 1.4Family Decision 787 299 66.7Migration s285 10.8 24.2Other 475 18.0 40.3Total 2,635 100.0 223.3

table 49: Main Reasons for Girls Dropping Out of School (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

n=x % response % casesHigh School Fees 158 5.3 13.6Distance 652 21.9 56.0Conflict 60 2.0 5.2Early Marriage 778 26.1 66.8Family Decision 786 26.4 67.5Migration 216 7.3 18.5Others 326 11.0 28.0Total 2,976 100.0 255.5


table 50: Disabled Children Enrolled at the School by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

School Low return Middle return High return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 20.7 99 23.7 76 19.3 85 21.0 260Yes 79.3 379 76.3 245 80.7 356 79.0 980Total 100.0 478 100.0 321 100.0 441 100.0 1,240

table 51: School Can Accommodate All Children in the Catchment Area by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Children Low Return Middle Return High Return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 33.3 163 33.6 109 20.9 94 29.0 366Yes 66.7 327 66.4 215 79.1 355 71.0 897Total 100.0 490 100.0 324 100.0 449 100.0 1,263

table 52: Children Leave School because it Conflicts with Family Interests by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Interests Low Return Middle Return High Return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 56.6 141 54.2 111 61.9 224 58.3 476Yes 43.4 108 45.9 94 38.1 138 41.7 340Total 100.0 249 100.0 205 100.0 362 100.0 816

6.4 Adult eduCAtIontable 53: Adult Education by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Low Return Middle Return High Return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 75.2 200 68.3 151 65.4 242 69.2 593Yes 24.8 66 31.7 70 34.6 128 30.8 264Total 100.0 266 100.0 221 100.0 370 100.0 857

table 54: Alternative Education Programs in School or Boma by County Classification (Source: Education Technical Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 66.74 311 58.1 183 50.34 220 58.62 714Yes 33.26 155 41.9 132 49.66 217 41.38 504Total 100.0 466 100.0 315 100.0 437 100.0 1,218


7. SeCurIty

7.1 reSponSeS to externAl And loCAl ConflICttable 55: Reported Responses to External Armed Conflict by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Response Low Return Middle Return High Return Total% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Report to Police 36.09 61 34.47 71 33.16 62 34.52 194Retaliation 16.57 28 10.68 22 21.39 40 16.01 90Temporary Migration 27.81 47 21.84 45 25.13 47 24.73 139Communal Support 11.83 20 18.45 38 12.3 23 14.41 81Support from Neighboring Boma 6.51 11 12.14 25 4.81 9 8.01 45Other 1.18 2 2.43 5 3.21 6 2.31 13Total 100.0 169 100.0 206 100.0 187 100.0 562Cases 68 77 66 211

table 56: Reported Responses to Drought by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


Report to Police 35.84 81 35.48 88 30.1 93 33.46 262Temporary Migration 26.99 61 16.53 41 21.04 65 21.33 167


Support from Neighboring Boma 11.95 27 15.73 39 18.77 58 15.84 124Cash Benefits 4.87 11 8.47 21 3.88 12 5.62 44Other 3.1 7 2.42 6 1.94 6 2.43 19Total 100.0 226 100.0 248 100.0 309 100.0 783Cases 100 96 107 303

table 57: Reported Responses to Floods by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


Report to Police 32.62 91 31.37 48 30.83 127 31.52 266Temporary Migration 27.24 76 26.8 41 25.0 103 26.07 220Communal Support 23.3 65 23.53 36 25.49 105 24.41 206Support from Neighboring Boma 11.83 33 13.07 20 14.56 60 13.39 113Cash Benefits 3.94 11 4.58 7 3.16 13 3.67 31

Other 1.08 3 0.65 1 0.97 4 0.95 8

Total 100.0 279 100.0 153 100.0 412 100.0 844Cases 106 59 144 309


table 58: Reported Responses to Hunger by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% =x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Report to Police 33.74 165 36.41 150 31.4 260 33.26 575Temporary Migration 21.68 106 15.78 65 24.28 201 21.52 372Communal Support 18.0 88 22.82 94 23.07 191 21.57 373Support from neighboring Boma 12.07 59 13.59 56 13.16 109 12.96 224Cash Benefits 8.79 43 7.77 32 5.68 47 7.06 122Others 5.73 28 3.64 15 2.42 20 3.64 63Total 100.0 489 100.0 412 100.0 828 100.0 1,729Cases 209 166 310 685

table 59: Reported Responses to Domestic Violence by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Report to Traditional Court 35.41 159 34.96 143 31.87 239 33.64 541Report to Police 26.73 120 27.38 112 26.67 200 26.87 432Protection from Relatives 29.62 133 29.34 120 31.07 233 30.22 486Flee 7.57 34 7.58 31 9.87 74 8.64 139Other 0.67 3 0.73 3 0.53 4 0.62 10Total 100.0 449 100.0 409 100.0 750 100.0 1,608Cases 177 160 260 597

table 60: Reported Responses to Crop Disease by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


Temporary Migration 14.12 75 11.54 48 18.38 116 15.15 239Government Support 32.96 175 31.01 129 30.74 194 31.56 498UN/NGO Support 29.76 158 29.81 124 28.21 178 29.15 460Diaspora Support 9.6 51 7.93 33 9.98 63 9.32 147Communal Support 9.04 48 17.31 72 11.57 73 12.23 193Other 4.52 24 2.4 10 1.11 7 2.6 41Total 100.0 531 100.0 416 100.0 631 100.0 1,578Cases 215 161 222 598


table 61: Reported Responses to Livestock Disease by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

Isolate Livestock 22.89 130 28.13 110 28.19 230 26.48 470

Temporary Migration 15.85 90 14.32 56 20.22 165 17.52 311

Government Support 29.58 168 25.06 98 27.94 228 27.83 494

Development agencies 20.95 119 18.67 73 15.69 128 18.03 320


Other 4.4 25 2.56 10 0.74 6 2.31 41

Total 100.0 568 100.0 391 100.0 816 100.0 1,775

Cases 221 150 285 656

7.2 unACCompAnIed, mISSIng, SepArAted ChIldrentable 62: Reported Unaccompanied, Missing, and Separated Children by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


Unaccompanied Children 15.07 41 24.45 56 7.9 29 14.52 126Missing Children 5.51 15 8.73 20 6.27 23 6.68 58Separated Children 33.09 90 31.0 71 12.53 46 23.85 207None 46.32 126 35.81 82 73.3 269 54.95 477Total 100.0 272 100.0 229 100.0 367 100.0 868Cases 240 183 333 756

7.3 SexuAl And gender bASed vIolenCetable 63: Women Feel Insecure Outside of the Home by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


No 64.26 169 62.67 136 75.4 282 68.74 587Yes 35.74 94 37.33 81 24.6 92 31.26 267Total 100.0 263 100.0 217 100.0 374 100.0 854


table 64: Reasons for Women being Insecure Outside of the Home by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


Abduction 17.3 19 16.3 20 13.4 15 15.7 54Rape 20.9 23 31.7 39 25.0 28 26.1 90Violence 15.5 17 35.8 44 32.1 36 28.1 97Other Reasons 46.4 51 16.3 20 29.5 33 30.1 104Total 100.0 110 100.0 123 100.0 112 100.0 345Cases 86 75 82 243

table 65: Responses to whether Rape/Sexual Violence Against Women have been Reported in the Boma, by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


No 71.8 183 68.9 146 81.7 299 75.4 628Yes 28.2 72 31.1 66 18.3 67 24.6 205Total 100.0 255 100.0 212 100.0 366 100.0 833

table 66: Responses as to whether Rape/Sexual Violence is Common in the Boma, by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% N=x % N=x % N=x % N=x

No 77.8 63 66.7 50 73.1 49 72.7 162Yes 22.2 18 33.3 25 26.9 18 27.4 61Total 100.0 81 100.0 75 100.0 67 100.0 223

7.4 rule of lAW InStItutIonStable 67: Number of Bomas that have a Traditional Boma Court (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 2.2 6 3.6 8 3.2 12 3.0 26Yes 97.8 262 96.4 212 96.8 361 97.0 835Total 100.0 268 100.0 220 100.0 373 100.0 861


table 68: Judicial Court Accessible to the Boma by County Classification (Source: Boma Questionnaire)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................


% n=x % n=x % n=x % n=x

No 72.1 183 71.9 151 89.4 322 79.6 656Yes 28.0 71 28.1 59 10.6 38 20.4 168Total 100.0 254 100.0 210 100.0 360 100.0 824


Annex III

vIllAge ASSeSSment Survey toolS

2012

IOM Boma Assessment Survey

Date: _____/_______/________ Form No:_________________ Declaration: My name is __________________________________________ (main interviewer), and I work for the South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, a government agency coordinating relief and rehabilitation efforts. We are currently working with IOM (International Organization for Migration), an international organization, on assessing the reintegration needs of your Boma. To do this we would be grateful if you could answer some of our questions that will take about an hour of your time. We thought it would be more beneficial to have both the chief and some group representatives answering the questions. Thank you for your collaboration, your contribution will help in strengthening the co-ordination of Government and partner support efforts.. RRC Enumerator name: _________________________________________________ IOM Supervisor name: __________________________________________________ Interviewees: 1. Name: _______________________________ Position: Boma Chief 2. Name: _______________________________ Position: Returnee Representative 3. Name: _______________________________ Position: Female Representative 4. Name: _______________________________ Position: Youth Representative

1- GENERAL SECTION 1. Boma: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Payam: __________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. County: __________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. State: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Number of villages in the Boma: __________

a. Village Name:___________________________GPS:________________ N ________________ E ; Alt ______ m Water Point Bridge Time to water point ______min; Time to School _____min; Time to Health facility _____min

b. Village Name:___________________________GPS:________________ N ________________ E ; Alt ______ m Water Point Bridge Time to water point ______min; Time to School _____min; Time to Health facility _____min

c. Village Name:___________________________GPS:________________ N ________________ E ; Alt ______ m Water Point Bridge Time to water point ______min; Time to School _____min; Time to Health facility _____min

d. Village Name:___________________________GPS:________________ N ________________ E ; Alt ______ m Water Point Bridge Time to water point ______min; Time to School _____min; Time to Health facility _____min

e. Village Name:___________________________GPS:________________ N ________________ E ; Alt ______ m Water Point Bridge Time to water point ______min; Time to School _____min; Time to Health facility _____min f. Village Name:___________________________GPS:________________ N ________________ E ; Alt ______ m Water Point Bridge Time to water point ______min; Time to School _____min; Time to Health facility _____min

g. Village Name:___________________________GPS:________________ N ________________ E ; Alt ______ m Water Point Bridge Time to water point ______min; Time to School _____min; Time to Health facility _____min

(For more Village names and GPS points please use the space at back of this booklet)

6. Which tribe(s) live in this Boma:

a. ______________________________ c. ______________________________ b. ______________________________ d. ______________________________

7. What is the total number of people in this Boma:

Host Community Returnees IDPs Total

8. How many people normally live in a household in this Boma? ________ (Maximum) _________(minimum)

If over 10, are these all family members or extended family members? Mostly family Mostly Extended family Both

9. What languages are spoken in the Boma? a. ________________________________ c. ________________________________ b. ________________________________ d. ________________________________

10. What types of settlements are generally practiced in this Boma? (Tick)

Permanent : Seasonal : Temporary: Nomadic Other _____________________________________________________

11. What are the main land ownerships in the Boma? (Tick the applicable answer)

Individual ownership Free communal land Ancestral land Leased land Informal land tenure Others (specify) _______________________________________________

12. What are the two major types of shelters do the returnees and host community have in the Boma?

Shelter Type (Choose 2) Material Used Tukul

Mud wood poles

grass Traditional tents

Plastic sheets Others

____________________ Cottage 1 (Brick wall with thatched roofing)

Stone Bricks

Cement Wood Poles

Grass Others

____________________ Cottage 2 (mud wall with iron sheet roofing)

Mud Bricks

Cement Wood Poles

Timber Iron sheets

Others ____________________

Permanent house (concrete wall with iron sheet roofing)

Stones Bricks

Cement Timber

Iron sheets Others

____________________

13. Where do the returnees and host communities get materials for constructing houses?

Source Distance in hours and minutes Free from the forest nearby hours min Boma market hours min Nearest town market hours min Other (specify) hours min

14. Are there any land allocation done by the government to the returnees in the Boma? Yes No

15. Are there areas in the Boma that have mines or UXO? Yes No 16. Does you Boma have any of the following facilities:

(Note to interviewer: please use the codes – Satisfactory, Functional or Unsatisfactory for column 2 - based on indicators in the survey reference document)

Physical assets Condition (if applicable) Managed/Supported by School Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Health Facilities Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Police Stations Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Orphanage Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Religious estbl. Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Boma Market Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Roads for vehicles Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Bridge Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Public Transport Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Water points Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

Mobile Coverage Yes No Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others No

17. Are there any civil society groups currently operating in this Boma? (see table)

Civil Society Group Number Civil Society Group Number Boma Development Committee Yes No

Religious Association Yes No

Parent Teacher Association Yes No

Community Protection Group Yes No

Youth Association Yes No

Council of elders Yes No

Farmer Association Yes No

Traditional Courts Yes No

Herder Association Yes No

Others Yes No

Women Association Yes No

***************END OF GENERAL SECTION***************

2- LIVELIHOOD SECTION

1. Do the Boma people practice farming? Yes No 2. What are the sources of water for farming? Rain-fed Irrigated River 3. What are the main food crops grown in the Boma?

Maize Sorghum Sesame Groundnuts Vegetables Millet Cassava Rice Other (specify) ____________________________

4. Where do farmers get their seeds for these crops? (Select one or more answers)

Previous Harvest Market Ministry of Agriculture UN/FAO/NGO distribution Borrowed Other (specify)_________________

5. What other food types are available in the Boma?

Food Type Source Season Beans

Own farm Community owned forest market Dry Rainy

Vegetables


Fruits


Fish Own farm Community owned forest market Dry Rainy

Game (wild) meat Own farm Community owned forest market Dry Rainy

Chicken/fowl Own farm Community owned forest market Dry Rainy

Livestock meat Own farm Community owned forest market own herd Dry Rainy

Livestock milk Own farm Community owned forest market own herd Dry Rainy

Others ______________ Own farm Community owned forest market own herd Dry Rainy

6. Do the Boma farmers sell some of the crops harvested in the market? Yes No If yes, which crops are sold?

Maize Sorghum Sesame Groundnuts Millet Cassava Rice Other (specify) ___________________

7. What support is available to farmers and who provides support in the Boma? Support Available Provided by Communal farming

Govt. FAO NGO Private Business Diaspora Community Others

Credit facilities


Extension services


Co-operatives


Whole sale traders


Others ________________________


8. What are the major needs for production of food crops in the Boma? (NB.: fill in the table below).

Need Need Type Lack of inputs Yes No

Land seed tools fertilizers Labor Training Others ______________

Technology Yes No

Tractor Compost fertilizers Ox plough Irrigation equipment

9. What are the major problems that affect production of food crops in the Boma? (NB.: fill in the table below).

Problem Problem type Crop diseases Yes No

Specify

Other crop damage Yes No

Livestock wildlife birds Insects/pest Others _________________________

Market Accessibility Yes No

Transport Credit facility co-operative Storage facility distance to market

Conflict Yes No

Tribal conflict Farmer/farmer conflict Farmer/herder conflict Others __________________________

Natural disaster Yes No

Drought flood dry spells Others ______________________________

10. Do the people in boma own livestock? Yes No ; If no go to question number 11 If yes what is the total number of livestock owned in the Boma:

Livestock Number Cattle Sheep Goats Others (donkey, camel, pigs)

Is there a livestock market in the Boma? Yes No If no, how far is the nearest livestock market? Hrs mins. Do livestock owners in the Boma sell some of their livestock or livestock products? Yes No If yes, Select from the list below

Milk Milk Products Hides Meat Wool Others ___________________________________

What support is available to livestock owners and who provides support in the Boma?

Support Provided by Credit facilities Yes No Min. of Agriculture UN/FAO/NGO Private Business Diaspora Others

Slaughter house Yes No Min. of Agriculture UN/FAO/NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Veterinary services Yes No Min. of Agriculture UN/FAO/NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Cross breeding Yes No Min. of Agriculture UN/FAO/NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Cooperatives Yes No Min. of Agriculture UN/FAO/NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Export markets Yes No Min. of Agriculture UN/FAO/NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Whole sale traders Yes No Min. of Agriculture UN/FAO/NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Others (specify) Yes No Min. of Agriculture UN/FAO/NGO Private Business Diaspora Others

What are the major problems that affect livestock herders in the Boma? (NB.: fill in the table below).

Problem Livestock affected Grazing land Cattle Sheep Goat Others

Diseases

Cattle Sheep Goat Others

Water


Market facilities


Conflict


Droughts/Floods


Other ______________


11. Do people in the Boma practice fisheries? Yes No ; If no go to Question number 12

Do the fishermen in the Boma sell some of the fish? Yes No

What support is available to fishermen to increase their income and who provides support in the Boma? Support Provided by Cold storage rooms

Govt. FAO NGO Private Business Diaspora Others

Fishing gears Govt. FAO NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Credit facility Govt. FAO NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Co-operatives Govt. FAO NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Whole sale traders Govt. FAO NGO Private Business Diaspora Others Others Govt. FAO NGO Private Business Diaspora Others

What are the major problems that affect fishermen in the Boma? (NB.: fill in the table below).

Problem Problem type Lack of inputs

High cost locally not available labor Training others ______________________

Drought/floods

Extended period no outside help increase in prices Others _______________________

Storage facility High cost Unavailable not reliable not accessible Others _____________________________________

Market facility Poor Transport No Credit facility co-operative Not accessible distance to market not available Others ________________

Conflict Tribal conflict Fishermen conflict Others _________________________________________

Others

12. What other means of income do people in the Boma have?

Employment Pension Others Income generation activities Remittance

13. Is there a period during the year when food is very scarce for the Boma? Yes No If yes, specify: From ____________________________ (month) to _____________________________ (month) From ____________________________ (month) to _____________________________ (month) How do households generally cope?

Loans Reduced meals Cash benefits Forest fruits and vegetables Temporary migration Extended family support Food aid Other (specify) ______________________

14. Does the Boma have access to a major market in nearby town for their produce and/or needs? Yes No If yes how far is the market? Hrs mins. How do you get to the market?

Walk Public transport Bicycle Own motor vehicle Others ____________________ 15. Has the Boma experienced major livelihood shocks in the last two years? Yes No , if yes specify from the table below:

Drought Floods Livestock diseases Human epidemic Crop diseases Pests Conflict Other (specify) _________________________

16. What did people do to cope with the negative impact of the shock?

Wait for assistance Migrate Take loan Sell livestocks Other (specify)

***************END OF LIVELIHOOD SECTION***************

3- HEALTH SECTION 1. What is the most common cause of illness and death in the Boma? (specify for each group)

Group Common illness Common cause of death

Men

Cholera Diarrhea Measles Meningitis Viral fever Pneumonia Malaria Other _______________________

Ignorance Lack of medicine Transportation Other

Women

Cholera Diarrhea Measles Meningitis Viral fever Pneumonia Malaria Pregnancy related Other ______________


Children

Cholera Diarrhea Measles Meningitis Viral fever Pneumonia Malaria Epilepsy Malnutrition Other _______________________


2. Has there been any immunization campaign conducted in this Boma? Yes No Don’t know

How often? ____________ If yes, when did the last one happen? ____________________________ (Month) _________________ (Year) And by whom: Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Others __________________________

3. Has there been any education awareness on HIV &AIDS conducted in the Boma? Yes No Don’t know 4. Has there been any health education awareness sessions conducted in the Boma? Yes No ,

If yes, what was the health education issues covered?

Hygiene Child nutrition Family planning Reproductive health Sexually transmitted diseases Other transmissible diseases Other (specify) 5. Is there a health facility in your Boma? Yes No

a. If the Boma has health facility then: Do all the Boma people attend the health facility when they are sick? Yes No

If no, why? (Can tick more than one answer) Distance No drugs Insecurity Expensive No qualified personnel Ignorance Traditional medicine Other (specify)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Is the Boma satisfied with the services provided by the Boma health facility? Yes No If no. why? (tick one or more)

Not open everyday No drugs No referrals No qualified personnel Paid service Other (specify) ______________________

NB.:For a Boma with a health facility, complete HEALTH Technical questionnaire for the health facility authority and For a Boma with no health facility continue with questions below in this section

b. If the Boma do not have a health facility then: Which health service do the Boma people attend when they are ill?

Health Facility in the next Boma Health facility in the Town Herbalist Elders Traditional healer in the Boma Traditional Birth Attendant Religious leaders Others

How far is this health facility from the Boma? (specify) Hrs mins.

How do the Boma people get there?

Cycle Walking Vehicles Boats Other (specify) ________________________

Is the Boma satisfied with the services provided by the nearest accessible health facility? Yes No If no, why? (tick one or more)

Distance No drugs Insecurity Expensive No qualified personnel Ignorance Traditional medicine Not easily accessible Others (specify)

***************END OF HEALTH SECTION****************

4- WASH SECTION

1. Are there natural sources of water in your Boma? Yes No If yes, are they seasonal perennial (all year)

River Stream Spring Other (specify) ________________________

2. Do the people in this Boma practice seasonal migration? Yes No

If yes, which times of the year do they move from the Boma? ___________________________(Month) to ________________________________(Month) Which members of the household practice the seasonal movement?

Whole household Youth male and female members Other (specify) ____________________

Which migratory route do they usually take and why? (Give Boma names) Route: _________________________________ to ______________________, ________________________________ Reasons:

Water Grazing Security Access Other (specify) _______________________ What are the sources of water available en route during migration?

River Stream Hafir Tap Hand pump Well Hom Other (specify) ________________________

Are there related conflict issues on the migratory route due to competition for water? Yes No , if yes which groups ? ______________________________ (Tribe) ________________________ (Payam) ______________________________ (Tribe) ________________________ (Payam) ______________________________ (Tribe) ________________________ (Payam)

3. If the communities here do not migrate or part of the family does not join the seasonal migration, where do they collect

water for the household use during the wet and dry season? (In the ‘water accessibility’ columns, more than one answer is applicable)

Answer choices to be filled in the form:

1. Accessible throughout the year 2. Seasonal Accessibility 3. Inaccessible due to insecurity 4. Insufficient 5. Accessible to some groups

Use the above 5 option given to fill up the table below.

Water accessibility

Water Source Water Accessibility

Walking dist. In min.

River Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

Stream Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -

5 -

Spring Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

Hom Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

Bore Hole Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

Hafir Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

Tap Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

Tanker Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

Lake/Pond Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

Other Yes No Number ____

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

4. Does the Boma have a water user committee? Yes No

5. Are some of these water sources used at a fee? Yes No

If yes, how much is paid per unit? Unit: Litres Jerry Cans Drums Others _________________________ monthly cost ______________SSP

6. Are the water sources accessible to all households in the Boma? Yes No If No, Why? Distance Insecurity Quality of water Not sufficient Others _________________________

7. Are there conflicts over water between communities or groups in the Boma? Yes No 8. Who supports the Boma in maintaining the Borehole /taps/ hafirs/ wells?

Government The community UN/NGO Private Sector Other (specify) Jointly maintained by ____________________________and ____________________________ Jointly maintained by ____________________________and ____________________________

9. Does the Boma have latrines? Yes No If yes, specify: (tick appropriate responses)

User Level Latrine Type Latrine life (years) Public latrines Simple pit

Ventilated pit Flush toilets Other

House hold latrines Simple pit Ventilated pit Flush toilets Other

Open-air/bush Not applicable Not applicable 10. Do people in the Boma generally use those latrines? Yes No If No, why?

No latrines Cultural belief Lack of awareness Other (specify) ____________________ 11. Has the Boma received sanitation and hygiene education in the last 2 years?

Yes No Don’t know If yes, what was the hygiene education topic(s)?

Hand washing Clean drinking water Clean hygiene Garbage disposal Others Who provided the training?

Government The community UN/NGO Private Sector Other (specify)

*************END OF WASH SECTION***************

5- EDUCATION SECTION

1. Do all children in the Boma attend primary school? Yes No If no, what is the percentage of those not attending : 25% 50% 75% 100% If no, which are the reasons? (Can give more than one reason)

Language barrier Poor education Standard Migration Expensive Feeding Family decision Not interested Culture Security Distance Strict School discipline Others specify

2. Do all girls in the Boma attend primary school? Yes No

If no, what is the percentage of those not attending: 25% 50% 75% 100% If no, which are the reasons? (Can give more than one reason)

Language barrier Poor education standard Migration Expensive Feeding Family decision Not interested Early marriage Security Distance Strict School discipline Others specify

3. Do some children in the Boma leave school because the school calendar conflicts with their individual or family

interests? Yes No If yes, what are these activities and what periods do they occur?

Yearly Absent period Job/family interest Months per

year Market duties

Herding

Farming

Seasonal Migration

Others

4. Once the Boma children complete the level of education offered in the Boma, where do they go to continue their

education? Other boma/town Name: Do not attend further education Move to live with relatives in town Others (specify)

5. Does the Boma conduct Adult Education? Yes No 6. Do you have a school in this Boma? Yes No

a) if the Boma has education facility/ school then: If yes, how many schools are there in the boma? _________

Do parents pay fees for children to attend the primary school in the Boma? Yes No

If yes what is the fees for and how much does parents/guardian pay?

Fee type Amount in SSP How many times a year Registration fees

Monthly Quarterly Half Yearly Yearly

School fees


Exam fees


Uniform fees


School maintenance fees


Feeding fees


Other fees (specify)


Is the Boma satisfied with the standard of the school? Yes No Don’t know If no, why?

Poor performance Low pass rates Un-trained teachers Expensive Far Others

In order of importance, what are the three urgent needs of the school? (write the numbers according to

ranking):

Trained teachers

Structural maintenance

School latrines

Additional classes

School furniture

Books

Potable water

School feeding

Other (specify)

What is the annual school calendar? _______________________(Month) to _________________________(Month)

NB: If the Boma has schools, complete the ‘EDUCATION Technical questionnaire’ booklet. For a Boma without a school continue with questions below:

b) if the Boma do not have education facility/ school then:

Which school does most of the children of the Boma attend? (school name and Boma)

School name_______________________________________, Boma_____________________________________________

How far is the school from the Boma? Hrs mins

Does the Boma have other forms of education? Yes No

If yes, then state which, Informal literacy classes Sunday school Vocational training Others (specify) ____________

*************END OF EDUCATION SECTION***************

6- PROTECTION SECTION

1. What are the external violations, threats and risks encountered in the Boma in the last two years and how did the Boma

respond? Tick one or more answers in the first column. Tick maximum 2 answers in the second column; For the third column tick maximum 3 appropriate options

Violation/threats/risks Group most affected (Choose 2)

Boma response (Choose 3)

Armed conflict Men women Children Livelihood group Elderly Others

Reported to payam authority/Police/livelihood protection unit Retaliation Temporary migration, Communal support, Support from neighboring Boma, Other (specify)____________

Drought Men

women Children Livelihood group Elderly Others

Reported to payam authority/Police/livelihood protection unit Temporary migration, Communal support, Support from neighboring Boma, Cash benefits, Other (specify)____________

Floods

Men women Children Livelihood group Elderly Others


Hunger Men

women

Reported to payam authority/Police/livelihood protection unit Temporary migration,

Children Livelihood group Elderly Others

Communal support, Support from neighboring Boma, Cash benefits, Other (specify)____________

Epidemics Men



Others Men


Reported to payam authority/Police/livelihood protection unit Fought back, Temporary migration, Communal support, Support from neighboring Boma, Cash benefits, Other (specify)____________

2. What are the local violations, threats and risks encountered in the Boma in the last two years and how did the Boma

respond? Violation/threats/risks Group most affected

(Choose 2) Boma response (Choose 3)

Local conflict Men women Children Livelihood group Elderly Others

Reported to payam authority/Police/livelihood protection unit Retaliation Temporary migration, Communal support, Support from neighboring Boma, Other (specify)____________

Domestic Violence Men women Children Livelihood group Elderly Others

Report to traditional Court Report to Police Seek protection from relatives Flee Others (specify)____________

Violence against women

Child Girl Women (14-40 yrs) Offspring Elderly Women Others

Report to traditional Court Report to Police Seek protection from relatives Flee Others (specify)____________

Seasonal road access Men women Children Livelihood group Elderly Others

Seek government Support Seek UN/NGO support Seek Diaspora support Communal support, Other (specify)____________

Crop diseases Men women Children Livelihood group Elderly Others

Temporary migration Seek government Support Seek UN/NGO support Seek Diaspora support Communal support, Other (specify)____________

Livestock diseases Men women Children Livelihood group Elderly Others

Isolate affected livestock Temporary migration Seek government Support Seek UN/NGO support Communal support Other (specify)____________

3. Are there unaccompanied missing or separated children in the Boma? None

If yes, do they go to school? Yes No Don’t know

4. How are the unaccompanied and separated children in the Boma cared for? Relatives Community support Live on their own NGO Others (specify) __________

5. Do the women in the Boma feel insecure when they are out of their homes earning a living or working in the farm? Yes No If yes, why do they feel insecure? Abduction Rape Violence Others ______________________________

6. Are the water points in the Boma at a safe distance for women and children? Yes No

If no, what incidences of violence/threats have been recorded? Abduction Rape Violence Others ______________________________

How often do they occur? Once a month More frequently Less Frequently

7. Have there been any cases of rape/sexual violence against women reported in the Boma? Yes No If yes, is it common? Yes No Don’t Know .

8. Do you have a traditional Boma court? Yes No 9. What kind of issues does it resolve? Land disputes Family disputes Cattle disputes Others 10. Does the Boma have a police station/post? Yes No 11. Are there cases that are referred to the police? Yes No

If yes, specify Rape Murder Abduction Conflicts Assaults Theft of movable property Land grabbing Cattle theft Others (specify)

12. Is there a judicial court accessible to the Boma? Yes No

*************END OF PROTECTION SECTION***************

EDUCATION- Technical Questionnaire

2012 This should be filled by the surveyor if the Boma has an Education facility


EDUCATION- Technical Questionnaire

Related General Questions form no. _________________________________ Boma: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Payam: __________________________________________________________________________________________ County: __________________________________________________________________________________________ State: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ GPS:____________________ N ____________________ E; Alt _________m 1. What school curriculum does this primary school teach? Old Sudan Curriculum Kenyan Curriculum Ugandan Curriculum New South Sudan Curriculum Others (specify)

2. What standard of primary education is offered at this school? Below standard 4 Up to Standard 4 Up to Standard 6 Up to Standard 8 Others (specify)

3. School structure: Does the school have an appropriate, safe and secure building?

Education facility Structure

Status (Answer all questions)

(choose max. 2) Permanent Building Semi-permanent building Temporary Shade/Tukul Open air/under tree Other (Specify)

No. of Classrooms_____________

Have secure doors? Yes No

Material of walls : bricks

Blocks Mud

Have secure windows? Yes

No

Well Ventilated? Yes No

Roofing is waterproof? Yes

No

Roofing Material: Corrugated Thatched

Tent Material Other

Has Sufficient daylight? Yes

No

Head teacher’s office: Yes No


Have secure windows? Yes

No


Roofing is waterproof? Yes

No

Has Sufficient daylight? Yes No

Has sufficient space for a desk? Yes

No

Has sufficient space for meetings? Yes No

Teachers office/ staff room: Yes No


Have secure windows? Yes No

Well Ventilated? Yes

No

Roofing is waterproof? Yes No

Has Sufficient daylight? Yes

No

Have sufficient desks for each teacher? Yes No

Have cupboards for teaching resources? Yes

No

School fence: Yes No

Material used: Temporary material Fenced with plants

Wired fence Brick walls

No fence

Has secure gate? Yes No

Has a garden? Yes

No

4. Is the school healthy, clean and sufficiently protective of the school children?

Education facility assets and services

Status (Answer all questions)

School furniture: Yes No

Desks and chairs for pupils? Yes No

Class Desk for teachers? Yes

No

Blackboard? Yes No

Potable water for the school: Yes No

Water in school compound? Yes No

Sufficient for all children? Yes No

Non-potable water for hygiene: Yes No

Hand washing points present? Yes No

Situated close to latrines? Yes No

School Latrines: Yes No

Separate toilets for boys and girls? Yes No

Separate toilets for teacher and pupil? Yes

No

Toilet for disabled? Yes No

All toilets accessible? Yes

No

Type of Toilet: Pit Latrine VIP latrine

Flush Other

Play/game area: Yes No

Football Ground Other playgrounds

Sports Equipments: Yes No

Foot ball Hand ball

Skipping ropes Basket ball and ring

Local sports equipment Other

_________________________________

First Aid Equipment: Yes No

First Aid Kit Special Needs room

5. Is the school able to accommodate all school children in the catchment area? Yes No

Are there children from other Boma attending the school? Yes No If yes, which other Bomas do children come from?

1. __________________________________ 2. __________________________________ 3. __________________________________ 4. ___________________________________

6. Primary school enrollment, drop outs and full time teacher numbers by gender for 2009, 2010 and 2011

Description

2009

2010

2011

Gender

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Annual Enrolment

Annual Dropouts

Number of teachers

7. What are the main reasons for pupil dropping out of school?

Boys:

High school fees Distance Conflict Language Family Decision Migration Others

Girls:

High school fees Distance Conflict Language Early marriage Family Decision Migration Others

8. Are there disabled children enrolled in this school? Yes No If yes, what are the disabilities do they normally have?

Visual impairment Hearing Impairment Physical Disability Other 9. What is the school calendar?

1. __________________________________ (Month) to ___________________________________ (Month) 2. __________________________________ (Month) to ___________________________________ (Month)

10. Are some of the teachers volunteers? Yes No , If Yes, How many __________ 11. What is the main language used to teach children in this school?

Arabic English

Local language (specify)________________

12. What type of school is this? Boarding school Day school Both Day and Boarding School (tick one option). 13. Are children requested to pay some form of fees to attend this school? Yes No

If yes, what is the fees for and how much does the school request?

Fee type Amount in SSP How many times a year Registration fees


School fees


Exam fees


Uniform fees


School maintenance fees


Feeding fees


Other fees (specify)


14. Does the school find it difficult to get parents to pay the required fees? Yes No

If yes, what happens to the respective student of his/her fees is not paid? Child is suspended Dismissed Not Penalized at all Told to do other work in kind Other_______________________

15. Does the school have a parent/teacher association? Yes No 16. Who supports the school? (tick the appropriate answers in the table below)

Support Provided by Teaching books, stationery, chalks, roll call books, e.t.c.

Govt. Community NGO Private Sector Religious Org. Others

School structure maintenance Govt. Community NGO Private Sector Religious Org. Others

Teacher salaries Govt. Community NGO Private Sector Religious Org. Others

School furniture (desks, chairs, e.t.c.) Govt. Community NGO Private Sector Religious Org. Others

Play/games equipment Govt. Community NGO Private Sector Religious Org. Others

First aid equipment Govt. Community NGO Private Sector Religious Org. Others

17. Where do students from this school go for further education?

Secondary School_________________________________ Vocational Center _________________________________

Military Academy _________________________________ Other __________________________________________

18. Do you have alternative learning programs in this school/Boma? Yes No Who provides? Govt. Community NGO Private Sector Religious Org. Others

HEALTH- Technical Questionnaire

2012 This should be filled by the surveyor if the Boma has a health facility


HEALTH- Technical Questionnaire

Related General Questions form no. _________________________________ Boma: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Payam: __________________________________________________________________________________________ County: __________________________________________________________________________________________ State: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ GPS:____________________ N ____________________ E ; Alt _________m 1. Type of Health Facility:

Hospital Primary Health Care centre (PHCC) Primary Health Care unit (PHCU) Others 2. Are vehicles or other means of transport available for referral? Yes No 3. Health facility structure: Does the Health facility have an appropriate, safe and secure building? Yes No

Health facility Structure

Status (Answer all)

(Choose max 2) Permanent Building Semi-permanent building Temporary Shade/Tukul Open air Other (Specify)

No. of rooms_____________


Material of walls : bricks Blocks Mud

Have secure windows? Yes No

Roofing is waterproof? Yes No

Waiting area? Yes No

Location: Inside the building Open air

Under a tree


Has sufficient sitting space? Yes No

Registration Space: Yes No

Secure doors present? Yes No

Secure windows? Yes No



Consultation room: Yes No




Has hand washing facility? Yes No

Has consultation bed? Yes No

Out patient room: Yes No





Drug Dispensary: Yes No Secure doors present? Yes No

Has fridge? Yes No

Have Basic drugs for: malaria? Yes No

Antibiotics? Yes No ORS? Yes No

Pain killers? Yes No

Have drug shelves? Yes No

Have regular supplies? Yes No

Laboratory: Yes No Secure doors present? Yes No



Has basic lab equipment and supplies? Yes No

Maternity room: Yes No




Have delivery/ labor bed? Yes No

Emergency room: Yes No Secure doors present? Yes No




Inpatient Room: Yes No

Secure doors present Yes No



Does it have: beds Bed curtains

Access to latrines Shower

Health education and immunization room Yes No

Has sufficient sitting space? Yes No

Location: Inside the building Open air

Under a tree



Storage room: Yes No




Have sufficient shelves? Yes No

Is there enough space? Yes No

Administrative office: Yes No Secure doors present? Yes No




` 4. How does the health center dispose of its clinical waste (syringes/bloody waste)? In open garbage Designated Bio-hazard bins Bury in the ground Burn Others ______________________ 5. Does the health facility have epidemiological data available and accessible? Yes No

If no, why?

Not archived Data not collected Others _____________________________ 6. Does the health facility have trained staff? Yes No

Doctor Medical assistant Nurse Midwife Traditional Birth Assistant Laboratory Assistant Pharmacist Vaccinator Maternal child health worker (MCHW) Others

7. Health facility patient attendance by gender and age group, for 2009, 2010 and 2011

Patient categories

2009 2010 2011

Male Female Male Female Male Female 0-5 years

6-17 years

18 years and above

TOTAL

8. From which other Bomas do patients come here from and how far are they? (give Boma name)

1. __________________________________ 2. __________________________________ 3. __________________________________ 4. ___________________________________

9. What services does the health facility offer to patients? Out patient In Patient Maternity ward Laboratory Health education Feeding centre Psycho-social support Other 10. Do the patients pay for treatment? Yes No ,

If yes, how much for Out-patient Departments (OPD)? ___________SSP Bed charge per day for in-patient Departments ___________SSP

11. Does the health facility have a Boma health committee? Yes No 12. Who supports the health facility?

Support Provided by PHC supplies (stationery, sanitary supplies, ward linen, other)

Govt. NGO Community Religious Org. Diaspora Private Sector Individual Others

Health facility structure maintenance


Doctor/Nurses/Lab technician/midwife/cleaner/other staff salaries


Health facility furniture (desks, chairs, beds, etc.)


Health facility drug supply


Laboratory equipment


13. What are the most common illness (one) and causes of death among the following groups in the catchment area?

Groups Common illness Common cause of death

Under 5 years

Malaria Pneumonia

Diarrhea Worm/abd parasite

Cholera Measles

Acute respiratory illness Meningitis

Viral fever Other

Lack of resources Lack of medicines

Logistic/transport prob Ignorance

Cultural belief Others

5-17 years

Malaria Pneumonia

Diarrhea Worm/abd parasite

Cholera Measles

STID Meningitis

Viral fever Other




18-60 years

Malaria Pneumonia

Cholera Measles

STID Meningitis

Hypertension Diabetes

Kidney diseases Epilepsy

Viral fever Other




Elderly

Malaria Pneumonia

Cholera Measles

STID Meningitis

Hypertension Diabetes

Kidney diseases Epilepsy

Viral fever Other




14. Has there been a disease out-break in the Boma? Yes No

If yes, what was the outbreak ___________________________

and how did the health facility cope?

Set up camps Increase staff Increase no. of beds Stock medicines Refer to other hospital Vaccination Others

What are the likely disease outbreaks? Cholera Measles Meningitis Yellow fever Other 15. How can the health facility be assisted to cope better next time? Provide Training Public awareness Communication Transport Referrals Fridge for storing vaccines Other (specify) 16. Does the health facility provide immunization for children? Yes No

If yes then what type: Full immunization for under 1 year age Partial immunization for under 1 year age Full immunization for under 5 years age Partial immunization for under 5 years age Full immunization for under 10 years age Partial immunization for under 10 years age

If no, have other agencies/organisation conducted immunization campaigns in the catchment area? Yes No

If yes which immunizations were done? Full immunization for under 1 year age

WHO NGO Private Religious est Others ___________

Partial immunization for under 1 year age


Full immunization for under 5 years age


Partial immunization for under 5 years age


Full immunization for under 10 years age


Partial immunization for under 10 years age


17. Does the health facility conduct health education sessions for Bomas? Yes No

If yes, specify the sessions conducted last year:

Hygiene and sanitation Child nutrition Family planning Reproductive health Sexually transmitted diseases Other transmissible diseases HIV/AIDS Malaria Others (specify)

Payam Authority Questionnaire

2012 This should be filled by the surveyor in consultation with the Payam Authority


PAYAM AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Date of data collection: ______/_______/________ Form no. ______________________ Declaration: My name is __________________________________________ (main interviewer), and I work for the IOM (International Organization for Migration). We are currently working with South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, a government agency coordinating relief and rehabilitation efforts, on assessing the reintegration needs of your Payam. To do this we would be grateful if you could answer some of our questions that will take about an hour of your time. Thank you for your collaboration, your contribution will help in strengthening the co-ordination of Government and partner support efforts. IOM Supervisor name: ________________________________________________________ RRC County Supervisor name: __________________________________________________ IOM Team Member name:______________________________________________________ Interviewee:

1. Name: ________________________________________ Position: __________________________________________ General section:

2) Payam Name: ________________________________________________________ 3) County: _____________________________________________________________ 4) State: _______________________________________________________________

Questionnaires 1. How many Bomas are there in the Payam? _________________ 2. What is the total number of people in this Payam?

Host Community Returnees IDPs Total

3. What facilities are under the responsibility of your office/County/State?

Infrastructure/Services

Responsible Authority

Primary schools Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Religious Est Others

Health centers Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Religious Est Others Water points Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Religious Est Others Police Stations Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Religious Est Others Road maintenance Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Religious Est Others

Veterinary Services Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Religious Est Others Agricultural extension Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Religious Est Others Security Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Religious Est Others Others Govt. UN/NGO Private Diaspora Religious Est Others

4. How many education facilities are there in the Payam?

Type of institution Number Primary Schools

Secondary Schools

Vocational Training

Others ______________________

5. Do the Payam authority have Education official who visit the schools for inspection? Yes No

If yes, how often he/she visits the schools in a year? 1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times Others _________

6. What are the main reasons for children dropping out of school in the Payam?

High School fees Distance Conflict Language Family Decision Migration Others

7. How many health facilities are there in the Payam?

Type of health Facility Number Hospital

Primary Health Care centre (PHCC)

Primary Health Care unit (PHCU)

Others ______________________

8. Do the Payam authority have Health inspector? Yes No

If yes, how often he/she visits the health facilities in a year? 1 time 2 times 3 times 4 times Others _________

9. Are there any land allocation done by the government to the returnees in the Payam? Yes No If yes, then in which Bomas? a.__________________________________________ b.__________________________________________ c.__________________________________________ d.__________________________________________

10. What are the land ownership policies in the Payam? Individual ownership Free communal land

Education Yes No

Language barrier poor education standard Migration expensive Feeding Family decision Not interested Culture

Security distance Strict school discipline others Protection Yes No Armed conflict Drought Floods Hunger

Human epidemics Local conflict Conflict mitigation Yes No Ineffective Judicial system Lack of resources

Lack of Rule of Law Traditional beliefs Others ____________ 18. Does the Payam provide any food security work? Yes No

If yes, what are they? Seeds and tools Fertilizers Training Credit facilities Others ________________

Ancestral land Leased land Informal land tenure Others (specify) _______________________________________________

11. Are there Bomas in the Payam which have reported presence of mines or UXO? Yes No

If yes, then in which Bomas? a.__________________________________________ b.__________________________________________ c.__________________________________________ d.__________________________________________

12. What are the main livelihood groups in the Payam?

Farmers Herders Traders Fishermen Carpenter Blacksmiths Daily labourers Others _________________________

13. Has the Payam experienced major livelihood shocks in the last two years? Yes No ,

if yes specify from the table below: Drought Floods Livestock diseases Human epidemic Crop diseases Pests Conflict Other (specify)

Did the Payam authority coordinate/assist the people during the livelihood shocks? Yes No

If yes, how? Monetary help Distributing food grains and NFI special camps others (Specify) _________________

14. How many Police Stations does the Payam has? __________

15. How many courts are present in the Boma?

Type of courts Number Traditional (chief)

Judicial courts

Others ______________________

16. What are the sources of water in the Payam?

River Stream Spring Bore hole Lake/Pond Hafir Homs Tap Tanker Other (specify)

17. What are the barriers faced to providing basic services in the Payam?

Basic Services Provided? Barrier

Food Security Yes No Lack of resource Lack of trained personnel conflict

Lack of disarmament Others _________________________ Water Yes No Distance Insecurity Quality of water Not sufficient Others

_________________________ Health Yes No Distance No drugs Insecurity Expensive No qualified

personnel Others ________________________

south sudaniomsouthsudan.org/tracking/sites/default/publicfiles/documents/iom... · violence in...

Documents