RAPID MARKET ASSESSMENT FOR CONFLICT AFFECTED PERSONS IN TAMBURA COUNTY – WESTERN STATE, REPUBLIC OF

Compiled by: Sherrie Lilian R. LCED - M&E Officer

March 2019

1

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 Objectives of the rapid market assessment ...... 5 1.3 Assessment Process ...... 6 1.3 Assessment Coverage ...... 7 1.4 Ethical Considerations ...... 7 1.5 Major Challenges and Limitations ...... 8 2.0 PRESENTATION OF KEY FINDINGS ...... 8 2.1 General Overview of the Tambura County (assessment location) ...... 8 2.2 Organizational Profile (Lacha Community and Economic Development) ...... 9 2.3 Background Information ...... 9 2.3.1. Total individuals interviewed by boma disaggregated desegregated by gender ...... 9 2.3.2 Vulnerability Status of primary respondents interviewed ...... 10 2.3.3 Family Composition...... 10 2.4 Coping Mechanism...... 11 2.4.1 Source of Income/Livelihood ...... 12 2.4.2 Average Monthly Income ...... 13 2.4.3 Household monthly expenditure by need ...... 14 2.4.4 Humanitarian Assistance Received ...... 14 3.0 NEEDS ANALYSIS ...... 15 4.0 PREFERRED MODALITY OF INTERVANTION: CASH AND/OR IN KIND? ...... 15 5.0 RISK ANALYSIS ...... 17 5.3 Risk Mitigation Strategy ...... 18 6.0 PROTECTION RISK/POWER ANALYSIS ...... 18 7.0 MARKET ACCESSIBILITY ...... 20 7.1 Ease of access to market by the target population ...... 20 7.2 Market access for traders ...... 21 8.0 MARKET FUNCTIONALITY ...... 22 8.1 Availability of Shelter materials in the market ...... 23 8.2 Availability of Shelter & WASH NFIs in the market ...... 24 9.0 BUSINESS ANALYSIS (Traders’ capacity to respond to increased demand) ...... 26

2

10.0 FINANCIAL MARKET ANALYSIS ...... 27 11.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 28 11.1 Recommendations ...... 30 ANNEX I: LCED MARKET ASSESSMENT HOUSEHOLD BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRIMARY RESPONDENTS ...... 34 ANNEX II: LCED MARKET ASSESSMENT TOOL - Checklist for Traders/Vendors’ Interview and observation ...... 39 ANNEX III: MARKET ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ...... 42

3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

“As we prepare to enter 2019, South Sudan remains in the grip of a serious humanitarian crisis. The cumulative effects of years of conflict and violence against civilians have destroyed people’s homes and livelihoods. It is with this in mind that today I am calling for $1.5 billion to give assistance and protection to 5.7 million people who have been affected by the conflict in South Sudan and are the most in need” Alain Noudéhou, the Humanitarian Coordinator for South Sudan (Dec, 2018).

In South Sudan, more than 7 million people - about two thirds of the population - are in dire need of some form of humanitarian assistance and protection in 2019 – the same proportion as in 2018. While the situation is no longer escalating at a rapid speed, the country remains in the grip of a serious humanitarian crisis (UN OCHA, Dec 2018).

Since the end of May 2018, conflict between government and opposition forces has led to over 12,000 IDPs fleeing to Tambura from the Nagero area alone. According to the Tambura Displacement Brief (November 2017), the population of Tambura County has reportedly rapidly increased since the beginning of 2018 with reported influx of returnees from CAR as well as IDPs from neighbouring counties like Nagero, Namutina Yambio, and Ezo. The RRC recorded 6,212 returnees (1,517 households (HHs)) in Source Yubu and 16,699 IDPs/returnees (8,360 HHs) in Tambura in October 2018, though no humanitarian organizations have been able to verify these numbers (Reach, 2018).

As a result of these continuing conflicts forcing people to flee their homes and destruction of gardens, many families in Tambura County are hosting a big number of returnee or IDP relatives and/or friends. One of the IDPs was quoted,

‘Dozens of civilians have been killed and some others are still missing in the bush. The armed group destroyed our farms and burnt down our houses. My grandfather and aunt are still missing in the bush and we don’t know if they are still alive or killed. All our property has been burned down. Now our kids are here and there is no school for them. If government or some NGOs here could allow them to join schools here in Tambura that will be good.” (Oct, 2018).

Worse still, the recent months have seen Tambura County hit by food shortages (LCED Monitoring Report, Jan 2018). The findings of the monitoring visit clearly pointed out hunger as the major reason that forced the IDPs who were settled in Mabia settlement to abandon the camp and trudge back to

4

their former counties despite the possible insecurity. Radio Tamujaz in July 2018 reported that about 27,000 displaced people in Tambura State (new state system) were calling for humanitarian assistance. The Tambura Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) Morris Bangire confirmed and echoed that 31,000 IDPs from Nagero County were registered in Tambura County after insecurity in their areas of origin in May 2018, and were in need of shelter, food, and medicines among others (June,2018).

The breakdown in community infrastructures and services (schools and health facilities) during conflict in the conflict affected areas is undoubtedly the reason why majority of IDPs, returnees and a few refugees have settled within Tambura County and reluctant to go back. Whereas recent reports indicate that majority of IDPs from Nagero have gone back home, it should not be misleading to suggest there are no conflict affected persons in need of emergency support within and around Tambura County. In fact, this rapid assessment identified another category of vulnerable population-the refugees from Central African Republic of Congo (CAR) inhabited within Tambura.

Recently, efforts to support IDPs from Mabia have seen partners like South Sudan Red Cross, World Vision South Sudan (WVSS), World Food Program (WFP) and Lacha Community and Economic Development (LCED) respond with humanitarian emergency assistance to these conflict affected persons but only in a settlement camp setting leaving out those with the host community.

It is therefore against this background that LCED conducted a rapid market assessment to provide evidence-based information on existence of ‘invisible’ marginalized and vulnerable categories of people in Tambura County for humanitarian partners to take action through an appropriate support modality (in-kind or cash transfer approach).

1.1 Objectives of the rapid market assessment

 To understand the different categories of neglected vulnerable populations in need of emergency assistance in Tambura County  To examine the different priority needs of the affected population  To understand how the market can play a key role in providing humanitarian assistance to the affected population  To identify and recommend the different options humanitarian partners could adopt to provide emergency assistance in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner

5

1.3 Assessment Process In order to gain in-depth insight into the needs and priorities of the conflict affected population, their coping mechanisms and their current behavior in relation to the market, different activities were conducted. Below is a tabulated summary;

Date Activity Location Responsible person 7-8/03/19 Desk review LCED Office- M&E Officer 12/03/19 Travel to Tambura Tambura M&E Officer 12/03/19 Introductory meetings with local authorities RRC, Honourable M&E Officer Commissioner - Tambura Meeting with community members to map out areas LCED Tambura M&E Officer with the target population and interviewing field Field Office enumerators 13/03/19 Training of 10 enumerators on data collection LCED Tambura M&E Officer Field Office 15-18/03/19 Piloting the data collection tool & actual data collection Hai Salam, Kania Field enumerators (primary respondents) 1&2, Zangia and Gamunakpe 15-16/03/19 Visiting and interviewing key traders in Tambura market Tambura Market M&E Officer 16-18/03/19 FGDs with primary respondents and traders Hai Salam, Kania M&E Officer 1&2, Zangia and Gamunakpe & Tambura town 19/03/03 Debrief with local authorities (RRC & Ho. Commissioner) Tambura M&E Officer about the findings 19/03/19 Travel back to Juba Juba M&E Officer 22-27/03/19 Data entry, cleaning and analysis Juba M&E Officer 29/03- Report writing & Submission Juba M&E Officer 03/04/19

6

1.3 Assessment Coverage In summary, the assessment covered 5 bomas selected in consultation with the community and the local authorities. Hai Salam, Gamunakpe, Zangia and Kania 1 & Kania 2 bomas were selected due to the presence of many IDPs, refugees and returnees in need of emergency humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, only Tambura Central market was mapped out as the only functional market within Tambura County (with the availability of most shelter and WASH NFIs) and only 5 traders interviewed.

In summary, a total of 59 people participated in this assessment whereby 50 were randomly selected primary respondents (10 from each boma), 4 key informants purposively selected (RRC, Hon. Commissioner, the former IDP Camp Coordinator- Mabia and local chief - Zangi) and 5 traders selected using snow-ball sampling method.

1.4 Ethical Considerations This assessment was conducted with high ethical considerations. The nature and extent of community engagement was determined by the assessment team prior to field work. Firstly, the respect for local authorities was very important to seek permission and guidance on the community dynamics and context as well as selection of the affected areas.

Secondly, it was very important to recognise diverse interest within the communities selected. In order to ensure that all relevant voices and interests are heard (equal representation), the assessment team used individual questionnaire guide supplemented by focus group discussions that were either all male/female groups to offer women a chance to air out their views freely. Additionally, a corresponding translator (male translator for all male FGD and vice versa) identified from the community supported the assessment team due to language barrier.

Thirdly, the assessment team was briefed about the community customs and codes prior the actual field work including the acceptable dress code and the most convenient time and location for interviews. In addition, consent was sought from the selected people to participate in interviews by explaining the purpose of the study, duration, and methodology and data dissemination. Participants were informed that they had a right to withdraw at any time in the interview or willingly participate by providing information. Consent was also sought on taking and using their photos in the final report.

7

Lastly, all participants were assured that information shared would be treated with high regard to of privacy and confidentiality and would not be shared with anyone or other implementing partners without their consent.

1.5 Major Challenges and Limitations A number of challenges were experienced by the assessment team;  Poor communication network; This is the one of the biggest challenges facing the population in Tambura. MTN is the only service provider though with limited or poor network signal that makes communication and coordination very difficult.  The high expectations about this assessment from the communities; However, the assessment team spared time to explain the purpose of the assessment.  Some traders not willing to give information citing out that they are not sure how this information will be used  Language barrier by the assessment team though the use of translators solve the problem

2.0 PRESENTATION OF KEY FINDINGS

2.1 General Overview of the Tambura County (assessment location)

Tambura County is located in Gbudwe State, in the western part of South Sudan, near the International borders with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and with the Central African Republic (CAR). It also borders three neighboring which include; Gbudue State, , and Lol States. The population of Tambura State is estimated at over 500,000 and is an administrative centre for Tumbura, Ezo, Mupi, nagero, Naandi, Rii Yubu and Yangiri Counties. The economy of the State is predominantly agricultural with a huge potential of natural mineral resources like: Diamond, Gold, Aluminium, Copper, Bauxite, Iron, and Cement. The people of this state are known for their hospitality, hard work, peacefulness, Industrious, and good stewardship in the Republic of South Sudan.

Tambura town is served by one main big market - Tambura market where other counties including Ezo, Nagero, Namutina and neighboring countries like CAR get their stock. Two smaller roads lead out of town towards the east and west of Tumbura and many trucks are seen loading and offloading their stock from Uganda, Zambio or Wau while others are loading to their final destination on a daily basis. Tambura State has an all-weather airstrip situated at the capital of the state.

8

2.2 Organizational Profile (Lacha Community and Economic Development)

Lacha Community and Economic Development (LCED) is a non-partisan, non-profit organisation working in South Sudan since 2008. LCED aims at supporting vulnerable, conflict-affected population from South Sudan displaced both internally and to neighboring countries. Embedded in its mission, LCED works to save and preserve life, promote dignity and enhance resilience of vulnerable people, in order to ensure peace and promote long-term socio-economic development. LCED envisions a situation where all South Sudanese individuals and communities have a good quality of life and high living standards, coexist peacefully and enjoy their fundamental human rights.

Providing need-based humanitarian response is a mandate of LCED and hence LCED prioritizes evidence based assessments to be able to respond appropriately. For example, in the past years, LCED has successfully provided humanitarian assistance and empowered vulnerable displaced populations through distribution of life-sustaining NFIs, construction of life-saving emergency shelters, hygiene promotion campaigns, revitalization of local market economy with cash-based intervention, mapping and rehabilitation of community assets (water points and sanitation facilities) and capacity building of affected communities in Greater Equatoria and continue to provide evidence based information for other humanitarian partners to lobby and advocate to save lives.

2.3 Background Information

2.3.1. Total individuals interviewed by boma disaggregated by gender

10 primary respondents were selected Total no. of people interviewed by Boma & from each boma. In total, 50 people Gender were randomly selected whereby 26 were females while 24 were males as indicated in the graph. Gamu Hai Kinia Kinia Zangi Gran For gender inclusion, the assessment nakp Salam 1 2 a d e Total team conducted four focus group Male 5 2 7 7 3 24 discussions (2 all males and 2 all Female 5 8 3 3 7 26 females) to triangulate information collected from individual in-depth interviews. The different data collection methods provided rich information about the subject under study as well providing the assessment team with different views and opinions that were later collated for conclusion.

9

2.3.2 Vulnerability Status of primary respondents interviewed Tambura is currently hosting 1 1 more than 12,000 of who among Zangia 2 6 are returnees, refugees and IDPs. Kinia 2 1 9 This has not only impacted on the

Kinia 1 1 living conditions of these people 9 but rather their host families are Hai Salam 8 2 becoming more vulnerable due Gamunakpe 8 2 to the increasing family size to

Returnee Refugee IDP Host Community look after. From the graphical presentation above, it is very clear that returnees and refugees exist in Zangia boma as compared to other areas while vulnerable IDPs and the host families are outstanding in all the participating bomas with Hai Salam and Gamunakpe hosting a large number of IDPs and specifically from Nagero.

The pie chart is also a true indication that Tambura is a Refugee Returne host to many of the target vulnerable categories (56%) 2% e 2% and therefore, the targeting criteria should not only look IDP 40% Host at the IDPs, returnees or refugees but their host be 56% prioritized.

2.3.3 Family Composition Findings from the indepth interviews and focus group discussions revealed that majority of the More than 62 6 target population (returnees, IDPs and vulnerable

4 to 6 32 Percent host families) are living and providing for a family Family Family size 1 to 3 6 as big as more than 6 members (62%) too big to cater for without limited or no access to any source of livelihood.

10

Additionally, the assessment findings also revealed that Percentage of households with children below 5 years the double burden is hitting so much on women especially with children under the age of five. More 58% 28% than 80% 2% 12% households 1 to 3 4 to 6 More than None interviewed 6 reported to have more than one child below 5 years which makes life it more difficult especially considering the hunger situation in Tambura coupled with poor shelter and lack of mosquito nets that puts the life of not only children but also their mothers at a great health risk. With the rainy season gearing up, it is evident that these people need emergency shelter and WASH assistance to mitigate the health risk.

2.4 Coping Mechanism It is very important to understand the coping mechanisms of the vulnerable population and communities in order to appreciate how the communities survive amidst disaster. It should be made clear that poor or vulnerable people cope, however, the more one is vulnerable, the less one has the capacity to cope, and the more one tends to adopt coping mechanisms. Therefore, the role of humanitarian partners should be to identify the positive coping mechanisms of the affected population and fill the gap. This assessment found it imperative to look at the different ways the affected population in Tambura are coping or managing their lives amidst challenges.

11

The assessment discovered that the Yes No target population has various coping mechanisms; for example, though Borrow money 40% 60% hunger has been a major threat in Gather wild fruits/hunt 80% Tambura for the last 8 months, with 20% the onset of mango season, the sign Sell HH Items 44% 56% of relief can be felt in all households No SNFI in the 72% 28% visited. This was evident (looking at the information collected) where over 80% of the respondents reported to gather fruits (mangoes) as one of their survival mechanisms.

Secondly, it was also found out that borrowing from friends, relatives, neighbors was another coping mechanism used to adapt to the difficult situation. Mostly borrowed was money, garden tools and sometimes food. Some respondents also shared that sometimes they get items from the shops on credit and pay later when they get money or in exchange for casual labour since the shop keepers know them.

Thirdly, some reported to sale off their household assets (56%) they come along with “I live on God’s mercies. especially bicycles, clothes, garden tools, basin & All my children died and my grandchildren live jerry can, bed sheet, chairs, hens, goats, phones, in the city." and sometime cooking sets (plates, cups) to meet Elderly their basic needs. Elderly woman, March 2019

Lastly, some are depending on the community through begging due to old age, disability, and or ill health that limits them from doing any productive work.

2.4.1 Source of Income/Livelihood

In order to understand how people meet their basic needs, there is Regular source of need to examine their source of livelihood. The assessment team income hence explored into the different ways the affected population meets No 26% their needs versus their source of income. Firstly, it was interesting to Yes note that at least over 70% of the affected population has some source 74% of income.

12

Majority of the primary respondents (48%) Source of HH income reported to be engaged in small roadside business like small shops, selling local bread, Small business 48% local brew, road side restaurants among Sale of charcoal/firewood 19% others. 19% reported to sell Sale of agric. Pdcts 14% charcoal/firewood while some were cutting Livestock 5% and selling poles/grass to the local Casual labour 15% population. 15% also reported doing casual labour (brick-laying, gardening, construction, carpentry) while a few were selling livestock like goats or hens which they came along with or agriculture products like cassava leaves to meet their daily needs.

Interestingly, during focus group discussions with only men, hunting was pointed out as a source of livelihood for men in Tambura County. Bush meat is a delicacy to many families in Tambura and men have found it a source of income in addition to harvesting honey in the bushes.

2.4.2 Average Monthly Income

Related to the above, the assessment

31% team probed further to find out about the primary respondents’ monthly 21% 21% 19% income to be able to determine their expenditure habits. Findings revealed 8% that most of the affected population (over 50%) on average earn between

100 to 501 to 1001 to 2001 to 3001 and 1000 to 3000 South Sudanese Pound 500 1000 2000 3000 above (SSP) on a monthly basis however, this is way too below to take care of a family with more than 6 members throughout the month by meeting WASH, Shelter, health, education and any other family related needs.

13

2.4.3 Household monthly expenditure by need

Food is always a priority need not 3rd most spent on 2nd most spent on 1st most spent on only to the vulnerable population 14% Shelter 6% but to every human being and 46% therefore, the assessment results WASH 20% were no different. What was 22% Health 66% 2% shocking though was over 60% 2% Food 6% reporting spending so much on 92% 16% health due to malaria and water Education 2% 6% borne related diseases. The findings revealed that less than 2% of those interviewed own a mosquito net and this was confirmed by discussions during an all-female FGD.

2.4.4 Humanitarian Assistance Received

During or even after a crisis, whether man-made or caused by natural hazards, humanitarian aid is vital for creating a better life Yes for all as a starting point for sustainable development . It should 39% also be noted that during crisis/emergencies, some unusual No 61% destinations/populations are often forgotten by the public and sometimes if information like this assessment is not shared, then they will also be left out by humanitarians. The findings of the assessment revealed that at least 39% of the primary respondents interviewed had received some assorted assistance like foods, blankets, mosquito nets, soap, cooking oil from humanitarian partners like Red Cross, FAO, WFP and World Vision and while the biggest percentage (61) had not /yet to receive any humanitarian assistance.

Note; even for those who received some emergency assistance (39%) in either 2017 or late 2018 are currently equally vulnerable in need of emergency assistance. This is therefore a call to humanitarian partners not to assume that those that were previously supported are better off rather conduct a thorough needs assessment and identify specific households that are in dire need of emergency shelter, WASH and NFI for appropriate intervention.

14

3.0 NEEDS ANALYSIS

The assessment team also 76% found it necessary to the humanitarian partners to understand and plan for 39%40% needs-based 31% 24% interventions. 14% 16% 12% 10% 10% 8% 6% 7% Discussions with the 2% 4% Education Food Health repay debts Shelter WASH primary respondents during in-depth Ist Priority Need 2nd Priority need 3rd Priority need interviews and confirmed by various focus group discussions discovered that food is still the first priority need to the affected population. This is very true looking at the food insecurity situation in Tambura where including the local population is crying of the same. This then becomes worse for the displaced persons due to either lack of access to agriculture land or the increased burden of caring for big families with limited access or no source of income.

The second priority mentioned need was health as earlier discovered due to exposure to mosquitos and poor sanitation and hygiene practices while the third most priority need mentioned was shelter due to lack of proper shelter or the congestion among the shared hut(s). However, other needs like education for children and the need for buckets or jerry cans to collect water kept being mentioned by women (in particular) while repayment of debts was shared during all-male focus group discussions.

4.0 PREFERRED MODALITY OF INTERVANTION: CASH AND/OR IN KIND?

Humanitarians maintain a “do no harm” as a fundamental operating principle. This process, known as “response [options] analysis,” coupled with community engagement justifies response decisions and demonstrates due diligence efforts to do no harm as a requirement for proposals to donors. The recent research by CaLP (2017) on the best practices and lessons learned revealed that comparing the reasons for choosing different types of response within the same project and among the same beneficiaries should provide concrete examples of the relative importance of different criteria in response and, by extension, the conditions under which cash or vouchers or in-kind assistance may be most appropriate.

15

This can only be achieved if the community is engaged to identify what is feasible looking at the risks involved with each option. However, any humanitarian response should maintain a ‘beneficiary- centered response’ approach where the buy-in of the beneficiary to any response is what matters.

This rapid market assessment therefore demonstrates the value of evidence-based response analysis to help humanitarian partners to think through and plan for the appropriate modality based on evidence from the affected people themselves.

From the pie chart, the findings revealed that majority Assistance Prefered Cash of those interviewed (68%) prefer in-kind to cash- 32% based assistance and the reasons (graphically presented) are; majority (38%) shared that money In-Kind 68% would expose them to security threats within their community and the fact that they lack proper storage facilities (for example, most of their houses visited lacked/have weak doors, while some respondents are housed by friends or relatives); Reasons in favor of in-kind an equal percentage (38%) expressed the fear of Safer from robbery 38% the increasing inflation coupled with constant No access to functioning… 18% increasing prices; 18% reported lack of access to items I want not available… 7% Inflation 38% functional markets and the long distance to and from the market. A small percentage (7%) expressed lack of specific needed items in the market more specifically solar torches, sanitary pads and garden tools. Because of the above reasons, they conveyed the preference for in-kind to cash assistance.

It should also be noted that a small percentage of respondents (32%) were in favor of cash due to; flexibility on what, where and when to buy; being able to plan independently on what is the most important need to spend on (75%); some mentioned that money is more easier to transport than in-kind items; cash reduces the security risk of being recognized while transporting it home; a few mentioned that cash would help them resettle their pending debts and to some, money would help them start or boost income generating projects for sustainability.

16

All in all, each modality has some benefits and associated risks and therefore, the choice should not only be influenced by the-would be beneficiaries preference but rather a thorough risk analysis is paramount to ensure that assistance does not create or induce harm to the beneficiaries.

5.0 RISK ANALYSIS

The perception that cash can be used to buy anything, whereas in-kind goods will not be sold is wrong. In practice, this assumption is often incorrect, with in-kind transfers (or vouchers) frequently sold to access preferred items or cash (Staunton, 2011). This – along with numerous examples of large-scale theft of in-kind aid – suggest that cash and in-kind programming present broadly similar risks, and should be held to broadly similar standards in assessing the security implications and other risks.

Cash transfers have been used in fragile and conflict-affected states and to date there is no evidence that cash results in large-scale diversion of aid or that cash is more prone to diversion than in-kind aid. Therefore, the assessment team probed to find out what the community thinks are risks associated with either in-kind or cash transfer interventions.

5.1 Possible risks associated with in-kind distributions

 Corruption during targeting by those selected from the community to register  Unfair distribution by those in charge especially if the community is given the responsibility to distribute  Theft along the way  Some people may divert and sell some of /all the items to get money  Some beneficiaries may exchange the in-kind items for cash  Not all needs may be considered especially when specific items are prioritized by NGOs  The old, sick and young may not afford to carry the heavy items.

5.2 Possible risks associated with Cash transfers

A discussion with study respondent revealed a number of risks related to contextual (security, corruption, prices, insufficiency), programmatic (tensions with non-beneficiaries, misuse) and institutional (reputational risk, financial) as shared and summarized below;

 Cash can never be enough to buy all that is needed

17

 Children or any family member may steal it and the needs are not met  High chances of diversion for example in repayment of debts, alcoholism, gambling, prostitution or even to purchase personal things like cosmetics for women  Those responsible for distributing may give less (corruption and fraud)  May be used to meeting individual as opposed to family needs  A husband with more than one wife may either not or refuse to share equally amongst all  Loss of money is very common due to negligence, theft, poor storage among others  Price fluctuations may affect the intended objective of the cash transfer

5.3 Risk Mitigation Strategy

The successful use of cash in contexts such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria and Chechnya demonstrate that these risks can be successfully mitigated, allowing programmes to be implemented effectively (Harvey and Bailey, 2011). With different views about the associated risk with each modality preference, the assessment team probed to find out what the community recommended to minimize the different risks associated with each modality. The information collected suggested the following;

 distribution should be according to need and family size to be able to provide appropriate support;  create awareness on why the assistance and ensure a strong monitoring system in place to minimize diversion;  work and involve local authorities, chiefs, elders, government to ensure the beneficiaries are protected;  identify the right person from the family to pick the items not necessarily the household head so that assistance reaches the right users and  NGO staff need not rely on community volunteers or leaders for registration and distribution but rather actively be involved in the whole response cycle to minimize chances of corruption, fraud and giving fewer items as opposed to what was planned.

6.0 PROTECTION RISK/POWER ANALYSIS

The Protection Sector is concerned with the safety, dignity and rights of people affected by disaster or armed conflict and it aims to coordinate the response in order to address immediate protection

18

concerns as well as effective prevention and reduction of protection risks. A protection response may involve advocacy efforts as well as assistance programs designed to promote the rights, safety and dignity of persons of concern, including, among others: legal assistance, community outreach, case management, and creation of safe spaces for vulnerable individuals. The need for a protection analysis during any assessment is to;

 Mainstream protection issues in the response cycle;  Emphasize the ‘Do no harm’, only if we understand can we mitigate;  Explore possible positive impact.

While mainstreaming protection into humanitarian response, it is also very important to analyze carefully the risks involved with any response so that the program beneficiaries are not at risk due to our humanitarian intervention. This is referred to as ‘do no harm principle’. Whereas it is important to ensure vulnerable categories like women, disabled persons, and children are prioritized during targeting, it is also worth to analyse any risks associated once they are targeted with specific interventions so that careful planning and engagement is emphasized. Protection risk analysis has great key benefits in regards to: understanding household and social dynamics (gender), independence, self-reliance, safety (e.g. during distribution or use), level of burden, fraud and/or diversion (by local elites and project staff), data protection (unauthorized access/use of sensitive data) and comparing with alternatives (e.g. risk of doing nothing).This study therefore looked at power analysis in terms of;

6.1 Who controls resources versus who provides for basic necessities?

The findings revealed that there is a direct and Who controls money Who Provides strong relationship between who controls household’s resources and who provides for the

Wife 40 52% family needs. For example, where women are fully in charge of their resources (majorly the female- Parent 2% 2% headed households), they are solely responsible for meeting their family’s basic needs. This is also true Husband 58% 45% to households under the care of parents (this was common for host families) and this means the host controls resources at the same time provides for the family members. However, where the husband controls resources, sometimes he may/not provide for the family. For example 58% reported that their

19

husbands control resources but only 48% revealed that husbands meet their family needs. Reasons given;

6.2 Who would control in-kind or cash assistance More so, it would also be important to understand Control of cash versus in-kind the power dynamics over the different intervention approaches (cash or in-kind assistance) to carefully 65% 62% guide future interventions. This assessment 34% 33% discovered that in many instances, husbands control cash while wives control in-kind assistance received. 2% 4%

As seen in the chart, 65% reported that husbands Husband Parent Wife control money in their homes simply because they are the heads of their families while women (62%) would control in-kind assistance simply because they are always at home and one of their major role is to care for the family.

7.0 MARKET ACCESSIBILITY

For any cash intervention to be feasible, the market should not only be accessible to the traders but their customers as well. This assessment therefore explored the ease of access to the market by both the traders and the target population.

7.1 Ease of access to market by the target population Firstly, majority of the respondents shared that the distance to the market was one to two hours of walking to and from the market. This sometimes contributes to their limited access to the market as many respondents explained that they normally go to the market once in a week and specifically Sundays when they do shopping to last them a week. The problem of long distance to and from the market was also confirmed during discussions with traders who shared that their busiest day is Sunday where they attend to many customers while other days are dull.

Secondly, the lack of or insufficient funds greatly limit most of Did you buy any SNFI in the vulnerable from accessing markets. For example, from the market last month? chart, 66% reported not to have bought any shelter/WASH NFIs Yes 34% No from the market for the past one month due to lack/limited 66%

20

finances or sometimes items being very expensive while only 34% reported to have visited the market and mostly bought items included food, soap, basin, kitchen items and mats.

Thirdly, in most conflict situations, insecurity limits people from Any risk accessing the accessing markets and therefore this assessment probed to find market? Yes out if the lack of access was associated with security threats. 12% However, findings revealed that there are no major security threats to and from the market (88%), however, women complained of long distances, difficulty in crossing the bridge for No 88% the elderly and ; as well as walking long distances under the hot sun.

7.2 Market access for traders

Interviews with the five selected traders supplemented by observations revealed that Tambura market is served with a wide murram road that is accessible by both vehicles/trucks and pedestrians on foot, motor bikes and bicycles. Discussions with traders confirmed that Tambura market has 4 main entry/exit routes however; the routes are so narrow that heavy trucks can’t find access through up to the door steps of the traders’ business premises which is an extra cost incurred to load/offload stock. Furthermore, the assessment team observed some shops located in hidden or covered by other small businesses which make their business unknown to the would-be potential customers. This was also confirmed during a discussion with the Hon. Commissioner Tambura County, who explained,

‘I do understand this problem of a disorganized market. In my draft 5 year strategic plan, this has been identified and recommendations suggested. I have also had discussions with the Minister of trade and also with the planning committee to ensure this market is reorganized through proper planning’.

21

In inert shell, in terms of security, there are no any major security threats and people were observed accessing markets freely to buy items. However, traders reported that security issues are normally during the rainy season where thieves/robbers take advantage of a heavy down pour more especially at night to break and rob off shops inside the market.

Lastly, traders voiced out that high taxes imposed on them by the local authorities coupled with high rent charges are some of the some biggest challenges they are facing that greatly impact on their business profitability which in turn affect their customers through increased prices. Furthermore, during transportation of stock, there are numerous road blocks (are made to pay for various clearances). Insecurity along the way in addition to bad roads makes the business environment so fragile. Pointed out also was the depreciation of the exchange rate (South Sudan Pound versus United States dollar) this occasionally leads to price fluctuations hence affecting the consumer’s purchase capacity as well as business profitability.

8.0 MARKET FUNCTIONALITY

A functional market is a precondition for any cash-based transfer programming (cash or voucher). A functional market means goods and services are available, in large quantities, affordable prices as well as good and recommendable quality to meet the demand of the population. Looking at what the priority needs for the target population are, their coping mechanisms and access to the available market, the assessment team went further to investigate the availability of the most needed items in the market assess whether Tambura market is functioning or not. This was done through observation, in-depth interviews with primary respondents as well as traders.

Interesting to note was that most of the Availability of SNFIs in the market items needed by the local populations are always available (67%) and those rarely available (8%) were garden tools, Sometimes 25% jerry cans, mats, plastic sheets and mosquito nets. Noted also was that Rarely 8% Always there are goods that are seasonally 67% available like food, mosquito nets and

22

blankets (especially when ordered by government or NGOs or during the rainy season).

More so, the assessment team found out that most of the shelter construction materials are not sold in the market but can be accessed outside Tambura town. It was also very important to understand what is being used for construction by the local population versus what is available in regards to issues of context, quality and quantity. In Tambura for example, most houses are constructed using unburned bricks, poles, grass, ropes and sometimes bamboo which is only got along Tambura-Nagero road (more than 10kms) away. It should also be noted that this assessment investigated two categories of items namely; shelter construction materials and Shelter/WASH NFIs as detailed below;

8.1 Availability of Shelter materials in the market From the diagram Bamboo Small Poles Grass Ropes Big poles one can conclude that the required materials (grass, ropes, poles and bamboos) are available however the biggest concern would be on quantity No Yes No Yes No Yes and quality. For Availability Quantity Quality example, grass was identified as the biggest challenge at the moment due to the long dry spell and the continued bush burning by cattle keepers which also has a direct relationship with the quality. This is also the case with ropes which are supplied in small quantities as observed in the selected shops and during household visits. The assessment team observed that majority of the population are using mosquito nets instead of ropes to tie the grass firmly on the roof simply because they are unable to find ropes in the market or are very expensive for a low income earner to afford.

Implication; it is very important to consult with the community about what is being used (understanding the context) and how such materials can be accessed. This is to help the implementing partners build from the existing capacity as well as encourage the community to contribute in improving their

23

conditions for sustainable programmes. More so, understanding what is locally available minimizes implementation costs (transport costs) and seeks to boost the local economy.

8.2 Availability of Shelter & WASH NFIs in the market

Only basic items that constitute the shelter NFI and WASH NFI Quality Yes package were Quality No considered for this Quantity Yes assessment. Quantity No For example, for Availability Yes shelter NFIs, kitchen Availability No sets, blanket, mosquito net, plastic sheet, kanga and solar torches were assessed while for WASH NFIs only jerry cans, basins, sanitary pads, buckets, washing soap and water treatment tablets were looked at as summarized above.

For shelter NFIs, kitchen sets (plates, cups, saucepans, spoons) were available in all the shops visited. However, only one shop out of the five visited was selling plastic sheets though in small quantities. The trader of plastic sheets also shared that he last stocked them in June 2018 because people don’t seem to buy them due to the

24

high cost. Other items not supplied in large quantities are solar torches and mosquito nets due to the low demand. For WASH NFIs, Jerry cans, washing soap, buckets were available in large quantities and of good “We use old pieces of cloths which also have their disadvantages like burning, quality. However, items like sanitary pads were not sometimes showing due to the size stocked in large quantities and just like other used, and poor hygiene especially when you don’t have soap and worst of all, scarce items are due to the low demand. In fact, and privacy in keeping and washing during all-female focus group discussions, many them is a nightmare.” Female participant in FGD, March 2019 women seemed not to know sanitary pads but instead shared that they use the locally available old pieces of cloths.

Worse to note was the absence of water treatment tablets in Tambura market. All the shops visited did not “You know in business you only stock what customers demand for. Like have and or have had customers demanding such tabs. these tabs to treat water, personally I All the assessed bomas pointed out shortage of water don’t treat my water.” Business trader, March 2019 as one of the main challenges they are facing and with lack of water treatment tabs in the market, the likelihood of water borne related diseases is high. It is no wonder that the primary respondents mentioned that health is one of the biggest areas which they are spending on so much. More so, though buckets tend to be in the market, the price is high (1000 SSP) for the vulnerable people to afford.

8.3 Prices of available items in the market Related to prices versus affordability, it was important to understand the prices of the available items in the market. Discussions with primary respondents about prices were confirmed by a visit to the market and inquiry with traders about specific emergency shelter material and Non-Food Items, including WASH NFIs;

S/N Item Description Unit Price/cost (SSP) 01 Plates Piece 200-350 02 Jug “ 400 03 Saucepan Medium (one piece) 2500-4000 04 Serving spoon Piece 300

25

05 Plastic cups Piece 150-300 06 Blanket Depending on quality 3500-6000 07 Mosquito net Piece 800 08 Kanga Depending on quality 2500-4000 08 Jerry can Piece 600 09 Basin Piece 500 10 Plastic sheets Piece 5000-7000 11 Sanitary pads Packet 400 12 Bucket Piece 1000 13 Soap Bar 180 14 Solar torch Piece (depending on 2000-4000 size and quality) 15 Sleeping mat Piece 200

Implication; most of the basic shelter NFIs and WASH NFIs are available in the market and hence this makes it more cost effective to access them from the available market rather than incurring transportation costs if acquired from pipeline. This will also boost the local market by ensuring traders increase stock to provide more items as demand increases.

9.0 BUSINESS ANALYSIS (Traders’ capacity to respond to increased demand)

Traders play a key role in ensuring that the needs of the target population are met by supplying the required items. In humanitarian intervention (especially in the cash-based approach), traders (third party) bridge the gap between the affected population and humanitarian partners by supplying items needed either through cash or commodity voucher.

26

The assessment team observed items being sold, category of the customers, quantity in stock, how often traders stock and access capital to inject into business as demand increases and the traders’ business monitoring systems in place. Important to note was that all the 5 traders interviewed were licensed by the local authorities and have been in business for at least more than five years with vast experience in business operation in their local context. Customers (both gender) were seen entering and leaving the market to buy some food items. Their target customers were local population and neighboring countries like CAR and DRC (until recent where the boarder was closed due to increased insecurity which has greatly impacted on their business) as expressed by the traders.

Traders shared that it normally takes them a month to sell off the stocked items and then travel to mainly Uganda, Yambio or Wau to restock. However, as most traders prefer shopping from Uganda due to variety and quality of the items, they pointed out that hiring a truck to and from Uganda is not only expensive but also takes almost a month to return back with the stock along risky (insecure) routes.

On access to financial services to boost their business, traders expressed with their disappointment that Tambura County has no access to business loans since there is only one financial institution (Eden Bank branch) never with sufficient funds to offer loans (only handles salary payments for teachers). As a result, traders depend on each other for financial support and lastly in most cases, traders rely on family members to support with business especially in times of boom or when the business owner travels for stock.

10.0 FINANCIAL MARKET ANALYSIS

A basic understanding of the financial landscape of the country of operation is necessary, so as to be in a better position to assess the various commercial options on offer. Information on the density of national financial infrastructure is also useful to determine the financial behaviors of the population in the country. This helps anticipate what challenges persons of concern may face in using a given cash assistance modality. Understanding the regulatory framework applicable to the country of operation, and whether there are active plans to foster financial inclusion, are key concerns when determining the feasibility of a CBI as the financial regulator (often the Central Bank) sets what payment scenarios or “use-case” are permitted in the country, at what scale and for what population groups.

27

In Tambura for example, there exists one financial institution (Eden bank branch) which is partially legally licensed to conduct financial transactions. However a discussion with the Eden bank staff revealed that they require for instance an additional license from the Central Bank of South Sudan to offer business loans which they find it very expensive considering the high operation costs banks incur in South Sudan.

In a growing number of markets, mobile money and money transfer bulk payments offer a viable way for payers (organizations, businesses, government agencies) to transfer payments from one to many recipients efficiently, transparently, and safely. Typically, as mobile money or money transfer markets evolve more services become available beyond the person-to-person (P2P) transfers and airtime top- ups, to additional uses and product offerings like bulk payments. Unfortunately, implementation on the ground often proves to be far more difficult than it seems at first glance. The first and most obvious challenge: the poor mobile network in Tambura alone makes the use of mobile money a dream far from reality. More so, not everyone has a mobile phone and this is more evident for the vulnerable population. Despite of all the justified excitement over the rapid growth of mobile phones worldwide, in any given developing country a large minority of people may still not own a phone, and these people are likely the marginalized populations that are often targeted by social cash transfers. In this case, an organization (NGO or government entity) planning to implement such a program has a few choices. It is likely that a number of alternatives must be weighed against one another.

11.0 CONCLUSIONS

The decision on whether to use cash transfer approach during any humanitarian intervention is influenced by the objectives of the programme, the financial landscape of the country including regulation and the adequacy of commercial offerings for financial services, security situation, market functionality, and beneficiary preference, access to the market as well as the capacity and willingness of other third parties to participate. When determining if a CBI is a suitable response option, the first step is to lay out the programme objectives in detail including its theory of change to understand the role cash transfers are intended to play in realising these objectives. Indeed, implementation modalities will differ if a programme is intended to provide community-based cash grants with protection objectives or basic needs to individuals for instance.

28

Similarly, whilst considerations such as number of persons of concern, intended frequency of payments, duration of the intervention, etc. will have an obvious impact on cost, the geographical location of the programme may put conditions on the feasibility of the intervention based on the presence of the required infrastructure and payment systems. Other operational concerns such as available staffing and budget are additional determining factors.

This market assessment therefore concludes that for any humanitarian partners considering supporting the conflict affected population within or around Tambura County using a CBI modality, the following need to be taken note of;

 Tambura central market is the only functional and accessible market in Tambura County  Whereas both shelter and WASH NFIs are available, some items like mosquito nets, blankets, solar torches, jerry cans, plastic sheets, basins can only be available in small quantities but could be stocked (traders showed willingness and capacity to increase stock to meet the increasing demand)  A thorough needs assessment should be conducted after the registration of most affected people prior considering them for any appropriate intervention  If cash transfer modality is deemed necessary due to its cost effectiveness benefits; a thorough protection and risk analysis need to be carefully examined and appropriate mitigation measures put in place by implementing partners  A financial analysis in Tambura indicates that financial institutions or money transfer agents do not have capacity to implement any form of cash-based modality due to unreliable network as well as lack of regulations by the central bank which may put the project at a big financial risk  Price monitoring mechanism should be in place to ensure the vulnerable people are not taken advantage of, or CBI does not cause inflation  Lastly, a power analysis must be conducted prior to any assistance to ensure that the intervention does not create any harm to its beneficiaries

In view of the above, it can be concluded that whereas the humanitarian call to move from in-kind distributions to cash programming as a shift to resilience is paramount, it is also important not to rush into conclusion that this is possible in all conditions rather to examine at context by context. More so, it should also be noted that the movement of cash in areas that are insecure may pose a security threat not only to beneficiaries but project staff as well. Context analysis is a key consideration for any

29

humanitarian assistance including choosing a modality. For example, in the targeted bomas of Tambura, in-kind distributions are the most preferred to cash assistance with reasons related to access to the market in terms of distance, availability of some priority items, escalating commodity prices among others. However, the different cash transfer modality (commodity voucher or trade fairs) would be the likely substitute since they serve more or less the same as the in-kind through a voucher. More so, to ensure that the assistance given addresses the actual needs and is not diverted, it is very important for humanitarian partners to weigh through the benefits of a ‘restricted cash voucher’.

Furthermore, shift from in-kind distributions to cash transfer modality requires a step by step analysis and approach to clearly understand how feasible this modality can be. This can only be done as a small pilot study targeting a few people. It is therefore advisable to pilot with a few beneficiaries, conduct an evaluation and the lessons learned can be used scale up or improve future interventions.

11.1 Recommendations

 The urgency need for Shelter/WASH NFIs to the conflict affected people around Tambura County is eminent however a through needs assessment to investigate individual priority Shelter/WASH NFIs need is mandatory in order to determine what to constitute the ‘commodity basket’ or trade fairs during the design of the suitable CBI Modality.  A CBI modality should be designed to address specific priority needs and measures should be in place to ensure that the assistance is not diverted but rather serves the intended purpose. With this, a restricted cash voucher, commodity voucher or trade fairs would be the suggested options.  The willingness and commitment of the traders to stock and inject more capital in their business is a positive step towards implementing either a ‘commodity voucher’ or ‘trade fairs’ where many traders would get an opportunity to sell most of their stock and make profits while providing a variety of goods and services to the target communities. However, for those willing or committed to participate yet with limited capital, they can be identified and conditional grants offered.  Much as a CBT programme is a good step to resilience, recovery and sustainable programming, implementing partners can only achieve impact if focus areas like access to markets, safety and security of individuals, availability of items in the market among others are uncompromised.

30

 More consultations with the target beneficiaries would be paramount in order to understand their protection concerns as well as any risks associated with the preferred modality of assistance  It is also important to conduct a vendor/trader analysis to introduce in detail a CBT programme to the traders as well as explain their involvement in the whole process to minimize trader expectations as well as identify those willing with capacity to implement an agreed upon CBI modality.  A Complaint and Feedback Mechanism (CFM) should be a MUST to ensure community report any cases related to unfair registration, distribution, fraud, corruption, diversion or misuse during the whole response process.  Lastly, this assessment recommends a cash-based pilot project targeting a small number of people as a learning ground for a shift from in-kind to cash transfer programming for future resilience projects.

31

PHOTOS TAKED DURING ASSESSMENT

Training of enumerators for data collection Enumerator during household intervews

An elderly displaced person in Hai Salam-Tambura A homeless disabled displaced person in Zangia

32

Local chief in Zangia during assessment One of the traders during in-depth interviews

All male FGD in Hai Salam All female FGDin Hai Salam

33

ANNEX I: LCED MARKET ASSESSMENT HOUSEHOLD BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRIMARY RESPONDENTS

PURPOSE The cash transfer baseline is conducted in order to get an understanding of the beneficiaries’ circumstances prior to a cash distribution, so as to be able to monitor the impact of the cash distribution in the post distribution monitoring.

GUIDANCE NOTE • The CTP baseline form is a starting point for organisations. It should be adapted to the specific programmatic objectives. • The baseline should cover minimum 10% percent of the total amount of beneficiaries. • Make sure that you talk to the person in the household that will receive the money. • Always obtain consent of the person being interviewed (it is their right to refuse) • Inform the person of the purpose of the interview and how the information will be used (Note; do not raise their expectations rather assure them the information collected is for planning purpose). • Indicate to the interviewee how the results will be shared back with the community (e.g. via a report, a workshop, or a group meeting etc.). • Always obtain the demographics of the person being interviewed (village where they live, age, gender, ethnicity if appropriate). Be sure to ask in a culturally sensitive way. • Maintain the anonymity of the interviewee. Explain that their name will not be used in any way. • Maintain the confidentiality of the interviewee. If in a crowded place, try to move to a quieter area.

GEOGRAPHICAL DATA State: ______County ______Payam:______Boma: ______Enumerator: ______Date: ______

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Name: ______HH Head (tick): Yes No Other (specify)...... Gender______Age bracket (tick): 0-18 19-59 60+ years Nearest Market (s); ______

1. Status of the household Returnee IDP Host community Refugee

2. Family size (Tick as appropriate) a) 1-3 b) 4-6 c) More than 6

34

3. How many children under 5 are in the household? (Tick as appropriate) a) 0 b) 1-3 c) 4-6 d) More than 6 4. Does the household have a regular source of income? (Tick as appropriate) a) No b) Yes a) If no, how do they meet their basic needs including WASH/SNFIs? Explain

b) If yes, tick primary sources? i) Livestock ii) Small business iii) Casual Labour iv) Salaried v) Sale of agricultural product vi) Sale of charcoal/firewood vii) Humanitarian aid viii) Debt ix) other (explain) c) What is the daily/monthly income of your household (local currency)?

d) What percentage of your household income (above) is spent on below? Rank them according to how you spend starting from 1, 2, 3 etc. Food items Health/medicine WASH Shelter Education Other (specify)

5. What are the 3 priority needs of the household? (Write below start with the most priority need) Food Shelter Education Health Hygiene Repay debts Other, specify

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6. Are you receiving any other form of assistance? YES NO (Tick as appropriate) a) If yes what form of assistance?...... …………………………………. and from whom?...... When?......

7. Would you prefer receiving cash or in-kind when receiving assistance? Cash In-kind If this response, jump to 7b Doesn't know a) Why do you prefer cash? (Tick as appropriate) i) I can buy what I want ii) Easier to transport iii) Gives me dignity iv) I can pay debts v) Other (specify) ...... b) For those in favour of in-kind, why do you prefer in-kind assistance? Tick as appropriate

35

i) Inflation- makes items too expensive ii) It is safer- from robbery iii) I don’t have access to a functioning market iv) The items I want isn't in the market v) Other

B. CASH UTILIZATION (POWER ANALYSIS)

8. a) Who controls the money (decisions regarding the use of money) in the HH? a) Husband b) Wife c) Parent d) Child e) Other Specify: ______b) Who meets the family's basic needs? a) Husband b) Wife c) Parent d) Child e) Other Specify: ______c) If you received any cash/in-kind assistance, who would control/decide how to be used? For cash: …………………………………………………… In-Kind: ……………………………………………… and why? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. d) What risks are associated with any cash related assistance to you? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………….. e) What risks are associated with any in-kind related assistance to you? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………….. f) How do we prevent such above risks from happening? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

C. COPYING MECHANISM

9. In the last 7 days, was there ever no WASH/SNFIs of any kind in your household because of lack of resources to get them? (Tick as appropriate) Yes (if yes, specify) ...... No Do not know 10. In the last 7 days, did you ever have to sell vital assets (goat, tools, bicycle, etc.) to get money because of lack of resources to get WASH/SNFIs? (Tick as appropriate)

36

Yes (if yes, specify) ...... No Do not know 11. In the last 7 days, did you gather wild food, hunt, or harvest immature crops to eat? Yes No Do not know

12. In the last 7 days, have you borrowed money or food from neighbors or relatives to meet your basic needs? (Tick as appropriate)

Yes (if yes, specify) ...... No Do not know 13. How do you meet your urgent needs amidst the different challenges you may be facing? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

D. MARKET AND PRICE MONITORING

13. In the last one month, did the household buy any WASH/SNFIs items in the market? Yes No a) If yes, list the 3 most purchased commodities and their respective prices? Item Price (SSP) 1. 2. 3. b) If no, why so? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

14. How far is the nearest market from you? i) Less than 1 hour ii) 1 – 2 hours iii) More than 2 hours

15. Is there any risk of intimidation or issues regarding accessing the markets for your HH? Yes No

• If yes, please elaborate …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16. How do you describe the availability of the items you need in the closest market? (Tick one)

37

i) Always (specify) ii) Rarely (Like) iii) Sometimes (Like) iv) Never (Specify) ......

17. Availability of SNFIs on the market:

Items Availability Was the quantity Was the quality sufficient? adequate? SHELTER Bamboo YES NO YES NO YES NO Poles YES NO YES NO YES NO Grass YES NO YES NO YES NO Ropes YES NO YES NO YES NO Twines YES NO YES NO YES NO Framing poles small YES NO YES NO YES NO Framing poles medium YES NO YES NO YES NO NFI Cooking set YES NO YES NO YES NO Blankets YES NO YES NO YES NO Mosquito nets YES NO YES NO YES NO Plastic sheets YES NO YES NO YES NO Kanga YES NO YES NO YES NO Solar torches YES NO YES NO YES NO WASH Jerrycans YES NO YES NO YES NO Basins YES NO YES NO YES NO Sanitary pads YES NO YES NO YES NO Bucket YES NO YES NO YES NO Soap YES NO YES NO YES NO Water treatment (acqua) YES NO YES NO YES NO tabs

18. Any challenges or experience you would like to share regarding security or access, gender harassment, disability discrimination, prices to the market etc.?

THANK YOU

38

ANNEX II: LCED MARKET ASSESSMENT TOOL - Checklist for Traders/Vendors’ Interview and observation

Date: ………………………………… Data collector: …………………………………….. Name of market: ………………………………………………… County/State: …………………………………… 1. How long have you worked in this particular market? Since …………………………… 2. Is your business registered/licenced with local authorities? Yes/No (tick appropriate) 3. Is the market operating as usual? Clearly explain ………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4. What are you trading in specifically? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5. Who are your target customers? …………………………………………………………………………………… 6. In terms of gender (boys, girls, men and women), who are your majority customers? And do you know why this is so? (Explain) …………………………………………………………………………………… 7. Do you have sufficient WASH/Shelter and Non-food items available on offer in the market? List key WASH and S/NFI items in the shop? Yes/No (interviewer observe) 8. How often do you restock? ………………………………………………………………………… and from where? ...... 9. How long does it take you to get your stock once ordered? ……………………………………………. 10. What challenges do you face in getting stock? …………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11. In terms of access, is the road leading to the market accessible by trucks/ pickups/ vehicles? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12. Are buyers able to physically access the market? Yes/No (tick appropriate) 13. What are the main constraints to market functioning in this area? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14. In terms of getting access to financial services (capital), where do you normally get your financial support from? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15. How many people does your business employ to support you during business boom season (Christmas, Easter, IDD)? …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16. Are the prices of the goods stable and affordable? Yes/No (tick appropriate) explain if no;

39

17. State the prices of the preferred items listed below Items Availability Was the quantity Was the quality sufficient? adequate? SHELTER Bamboo YES NO YES NO YES NO Poles YES NO YES NO YES NO Grass YES NO YES NO YES NO Ropes YES NO YES NO YES NO Twines YES NO YES NO YES NO Framing poles small YES NO YES NO YES NO Framing poles medium YES NO YES NO YES NO NFI Cooking set YES NO YES NO YES NO Blankets YES NO YES NO YES NO Mosquito nets YES NO YES NO YES NO Plastic sheets YES NO YES NO YES NO Kanga YES NO YES NO YES NO Solar torches YES NO YES NO YES NO WASH Jerrycans YES NO YES NO YES NO Basins YES NO YES NO YES NO Sanitary pads YES NO YES NO YES NO Bucket YES NO YES NO YES NO Soap YES NO YES NO YES NO Water treatment (acqua) YES NO YES NO YES NO tabs 18. What do you think stops some people from accessing/buying from the market? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 19. How could such people be assisted to access markets and buy their priority goods/services?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20. In case of any cash support rendered to such people (vulnerable people like IDPs, returnees), what do you think they would buy most from your shop? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21. How many of the vulnerable people would you be able to serve in case they received any kind of cash assistance? ……………………………………………………………………. (Numbers)

40

22. Or what assistance would you require to be able to support a big number of vulnerable people willing to buy from your business? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23. Do you have a monitoring system in place to track your customers’ purchases? Like receipts, counter books to record etc. Yes/No Please specify: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Thank you! Observations

 Visit the market and observe the level of trading (how many vendors, consumers, what are they buying and selling)  Security of the customers  Is transport available and affordable to access the local market (distance to market)  Check a sample of vendors for the type of items, quality, quantity and prices of goods needed

41

ANNEX III: MARKET ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

Name of market:

County/State:

Date:

Data collector (name):

1. Is the market operating as usuall? Clearly explain

2. Are there enough traders operating in the market as usual?

3. Is sufficient Shelter and Non-food items available on offer in the market? Consider key S/NFI

4. Are commodities being supplied to the market? Estimate the number of trucks arriving per week

5. Is the road leading to the market accessible by trucks/ pickups/ vehicles?

6. Are buyers able to physically access the market? who are the buyers in terms of age, gender

7. What are the main constraints to market functioning in this area?

8. List down shelter material and NFI available, in which quantity and the price

Items Availability Was the quantity Was the quality sufficient? adequate?

SHELTER

Bamboo YES NO YES NO YES NO

Poles YES NO YES NO YES NO

Grass YES NO YES NO YES NO

Ropes YES NO YES NO YES NO

Twines YES NO YES NO YES NO

Framing poles small YES NO YES NO YES NO

42

Framing poles medium YES NO YES NO YES NO

NFI

Cooking set YES NO YES NO YES NO

Blankets YES NO YES NO YES NO

Mosquito nets YES NO YES NO YES NO

Plastic sheets YES NO YES NO YES NO

Kanga YES NO YES NO YES NO

Solar torches YES NO YES NO YES NO

Jerrycans YES NO YES NO YES NO

43