South Sudan Cost-To-Market Report

National Bureau of Statistics

South Sudan Cost-to-Market Report

An Analysis of Check-points on the Major Trade Routes in South Sudan

National Bureau of Statistics 1

National Bureau of Statistics August 2011

The data from the cost-to-market survey and all resulting statistics are the property of NBS. This report may be freely quoted and should be cited as follows: “South Sudan Cost-to-Market Report: An Analysis of Check-points on the Major Trade Routes in South Sudan” South Sudan National Bureau of Statistics 2010

National Bureau of Statistics Contents List of Tables and Figures ...... 4 Foreword ...... 5 Acknowledgements ...... 6 Executive Summary ...... 7 Glossary ...... 9 Introduction ...... 10 Survey design and implementation ...... 11 Overview of Vehicles and Routes Surveyed ...... 14 Findings ...... 16 Focus: Major trade routes from Uganda ...... 24 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 30 Appendix: Questionnaire ...... 32

List of Tables and Figures Table 1: Overview of journeys by main item carried and average value of goods ...... 15 Table 2: Number of check-points ...... 16 Table 3: Trip Payment ...... 17 Table 4: Trip Payment (excluding international import posts) ...... 18 Table 5: Trip payment by value of cargo ...... 20 Table 6: Trip payment by value of cargo (excluding international import posts) ...... 20 Table 7: Time stopped at check-points ...... 21 Table 8: Time stopped at check-points (excluding international border posts) ...... 22

Figure 1: Routes surveyed ...... 14 Figure 2: Absolute payment on selected routes ...... 18 Figure 3: Payment as a percentage of value on selected routes ...... 19 Figure 4: Time stopped on selected routes ...... 22 Figure 5: Officials present at check-points ...... 23 Figure 6: Map of Nimule-Juba route and summary table ...... 25 Figure 7: Time stopped on the Nimule-Juba route ...... 26 Figure 8: Payment on the Nimule-Juba route ...... 26 Figure 9: Map of Kaya-Juba route and summary table ...... 27 Figure 10: Time stopped on the Kaya-Juba route ...... 28 Figure 11: Payment on the Kaya-Juba route ...... 29

National Bureau of Statistics Foreword

I am pleased to be able to release South Sudan Cost-to-Market Report: An Analysis of Check-points on the Major Trade Routes in South Sudan. Check-points along the major trade routes are a pressing issue for the Government of South Sudan. While revenue collection at international border-posts is an important source of non-oil revenue for the government, payment and time spent waiting at unauthorized check-points increases the costs faced by traders and by producers and consumers within South Sudan. This may inhibit economic development at this crucial juncture in South Sudan’s history. This report is a first step in quantifying the problem and will provide a baseline for evaluating progress made by the government in streamlining revenue collection and eliminating unauthorized check-points.

The cost-to-market survey report is the first report to be released by the National Bureau of Statistics under its new name, and indeed the first survey report we have published since South Sudan’s independence in July this year. The unusual methodology of this survey – travelling alongside drivers in commercial vehicles, sometimes for many days and nights at a time – tested the flexibility and adaptability of our staff, and they rose to the challenge admirably.

The survey was commissioned by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. We trust this report will be useful to MoFEP and to State Ministries of Finance as they formulate policy in the new Republic of South Sudan, and will be of interest to policy-makers in other line ministries. As ever, we welcome comments aimed at improving the quality of our work.

Isaiah Chol Aruai Chairperson National Bureau of Statistics

Acknowledgements

This report was commissioned by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, and prepared by staff members of the South Sudan National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). NBS gratefully acknowledges the generous financial support given by USAID through the Deloitte-implemented Sudan Core Institutions Project, which funded survey field-work and the publication of this report.

National Bureau of Statistics Executive Summary

Background and Implementation MoFEP, with financial support from USAID, commissioned a survey to quantify the monetary and time costs of authorized and unauthorized check-points along the major trade routes in South Sudan. This survey was implemented by SSCCSE in November-December 2010. Enumerators made 147 journeys in commercial vehicles along major roads in South Sudan and collected detailed information on the number and location of check-points, payment and time waited, and officials present.

Findings  Check-points are numerous. There are 4 check-points per 100km or 1 per 25km along the major trade routes in South Sudan. Check-points are more frequent on northerly routes: between Wau and War-a-War there are 7 check-points per 100km and between Wau and Aweil there are 6 check-points per 100km.  Payment is widespread. On all except one route surveyed, drivers made a payment at an average of 97% or more of the check-points they stopped at.  Payment is not confined to the international border posts. While the largest payments occur at the international borders, payment on internal routes can be up to 8% of the value of goods transported. Particularly significant internal check-points are Gumbo on the Nimule-Juba, Nadapal-Juba and Torit-Juba routes, Yei and Jebel Kujur on the Kaya-Juba route, Juba Bridge and Bor on the Juba-Bor route, and Gurei, Rumbek and Tonj on the route from Juba to Wau, Aweil and War-a-War.  Most individual payments are small. 47% of individual payments were less than 20 SDG and only 4% were more than 500 SDG.  Total payment is significant. For all but two routes surveyed, average payment per 100km exceeds 100 SDG. For more than half the routes surveyed, payment per 100 km exceeds 200 SDG. For 10 of 21 routes surveyed, drivers pay 4% or more of the value of items carried. Even on purely internal routes, drivers pay out up to 8% of the value of items carried. Payment is highest on the Nimule-Juba route at 7,026 SDG or 4,310 SDG per 100km. This is 15.4% of the total value of goods carried. Excluding customs payments at the international border, payment on the Nimule-Juba route is still 5.9% of the total value of goods carried.  Low value cargoes pay more as a percent of the value of goods transported. Payments for cargoes with value less than 5,000 SDG are on average 10.3% of cargo value where as payments on cargoes with value higher than 50,000 SDG are 4.1%.  Many payments are unreceipted. 47% of individual payments made during the survey were unreceipted. 27% of the total payment made during the survey was unreceipted.  Waiting times at check-points are high. Across all routes, waiting time is on average 2 hours 9 minutes per 100km or 65% of driving time. For all but seven routes surveyed, waiting time per 100km is more than one hour. For all but four routes, time stopped at check-points is more than 25% of driving time. Waiting time is highest on the Kaya-Juba route at 24 hours 32 minutes or 10 hours and 26 minutes per 100km, more than three times driving time.  The most commonly observed officials are police and traffic police, sighted at more than 50% of check-points respectively. In many cases, more than one type of official is present at a check-point.  The two major routes into South Sudan from Uganda are Nimule-Juba and Kaya-Juba. Average payment on the Nimule-Juba route is 15.4% of the value of goods transported compared with 4.9% on the Kaya-Juba route. Average time stopped on the Nimule-Juba route is 5 hours and 39 minutes compared with 24 hours and 32 minutes on the Kaya-Juba route.

Recommendations  Take steps against unnecessary check-points and unofficial payments.  Ensure coordination of revenue collection between states.  Reduce time spent at major check-points.  Improve administrative data collection and conduct a comprehensive trade survey.  Conduct regular follow-up surveys.

National Bureau of Statistics

Glossary

Checkpoint: Location in which a vehicle is made to stop on the route it is travelling. Crossing a checkpoint may or may not require some payment.

Checkpoint Operator: This should be any authority present at the checkpoint, including county authorities, payam authorities, boma authorities, Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), traffic police, or police. Multiple authorities are possible.

GPS: Global Positioning System

IGFR Task Force: Inter-governmental Fiscal Relations Taskforce

MoFEP: Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning

NBS: South Sudan National Bureau of Statistics, formerly known as Southern Sudan Centre for Census, Statistics and Evaluation

Number of officials visible: Number of officials manning a checkpoint. This includes uniformed and un-uniformed personnel like traffic police, SPLA, police and so on.

Number of guns visible: Number of guns that are visible at the checkpoint. These should be all the guns carried by uniformed and un-uniformed personnel at the checkpoint.

Receipted Payment: This should be the amount of money paid by the truck driver or other occupants of the truck at the checkpoint for which there is an official receipt.

SITC (Rev. 4): Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 4)

Unreceipted Payment: This should be the amount of money paid by the truck driver or other occupants of the truck at the check-point for which there is no receipt, or the receipt is a photocopy, or the receipt is not government authorized.

USAID: United States Agency for International Development

Value of goods: Total market value of cargo at destination, estimated by the driver. Unfortunately, no invoice was requested, and there was some confusion as to whether ‘value’ meant price at which good was purchased at origin or market price in South Sudan

Introduction

After decades of civil war, domestic production in South Sudan is very under-developed and it relies heavily on imports of food, fuel and manufactured items. Prices for these products are high relative to neighbouring countries. Poor infrastructure and limited domestic production are important factors behind this price differential. Payments made at international border posts and internal check-points have also been identified as a contributor, both directly and indirectly, to high prices.1

There are many check-points along major trade routes transporting imported and domestically produced items through South Sudan. Some checkpoints are justified on grounds of ensuring security of citizens. However, unauthorized payments and time consuming stops along trade routes can inflate prices for consumers and/or reduce the profits of firms producing and trading goods. In addition time consuming processes at the road blocks adds to the delivery time of products and further raises the costs incurred by final consumers. There is strong anecdotal evidence that roadblocks are a major constraint to trade and economic development in South Sudan.

MoFEP, with financial support from USAID, commissioned a survey to assess the charges made to commercial vehicles on roads across South Sudan. This survey is the first of its kind in South Sudan, and attempts to quantify the monetary and time-costs of authorized and unauthorized check-points. It was initiated to support the work of the Inter- Governmental Fiscal Relations (IGFR) Task Force which is working to harmonize taxation across the states in an attempt to promote trade and economic development. The survey provides detailed information on the location of checkpoints along major routes, as well as time spent waiting at checkpoints and charges paid. This report presents the findings from the survey.

1 See ‘Southern Sudan – Northern Great Lakes Region: Cross-Border Trade Study’ World Bank for limited evidence on this. 10

National Bureau of Statistics Survey design and implementation

Route choice and sample size Routes were selected to try and capture the major trade routes entering and within South Sudan. These were selected in consultation with MoFEP and USAID. Routes chosen included major southern trade routes with Uganda and Kenya, and trade routes connecting Juba with Northern and Western Bahr El-Ghazal. The survey covered 8 of the ten states of South Sudan. One of the primary trade routes with Northern Sudan, through Aweil and War a War was included. However the trade routes connecting Northern Sudan with Upper Nile and Unity were omitted. For more details see page 14. Sample size was chosen to try to ensure a variety of different items carried and vehicle types on each route. The lack of a comprehensive trade survey means that the sample cannot be seen as representative, but is large enough to provide an accurate picture of the chosen trade routes. Further details are in the section on limitations on page 8.

Questionnaire Design The questionnaire for the survey was designed in consultation with data users from the Revenue Department at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.

The questionnaire consists of three sections. Section A contains information about the route and surveyor. Section B contains information on the cargo, driver and vehicle: information includes type and value of goods transported, nationality and language ability of the driver, and size, weight and country of registration of the vehicle. Section C contains a list of check-points encountered, including time stopped, receipted and unreceipted payment, and number and types of official visible. The final questionnaire is appended at the end of this report.

Implementation Pilot survey: A pilot on the Juba-Nimule-Juba and Juba-Wau-Juba routes was carried out to test the questionnaire and logistics of the survey over two weeks in August 2010. On the basis of results from the pilot, it was decided to avoid the use of GPS devices to ensure discretion, to allow for multiple officials at each check-point, to collect receipts where possible to check the legalities of receipted payments, and to allow for more time than was earlier expected to complete each of the routes. Some changes were also made to questionnaire design.

Training: Training for the survey was held over three days in late November 2010 in SSCCSE HQ at Juba. It was conducted by four SSCCSE staff from the Economic Statistics Department and focused on understanding the questionnaire (e.g. SITC classifications, value of goods carried), interview techniques and other necessary technical skills.

Implementation: The methodology is based on surveys previously commissioned by USAID in other countries e.g. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Enumerators travelled to common departure points to find vehicles to board. They were asked to try to vary the size of vehicles, items carried, country of registration of vehicle and nationality of driver. They informed drivers of the purpose of the survey, and asked the driver not to reveal this to officials at any of the check- points passed. They then recorded vehicle, cargo and driver characteristics. Over the course of the journey, they sat alongside the driver and collected information on the location of checkpoints, charges paid and time stopped. A total of 147 one-way journeys were made by 18 enumerators over 21 days in November-December 2010.

Challenges and Limitations The unusual methodology of the Cost to Market Survey presented some unique challenges. These included: 1. Poor condition of roads: The late continuation of the rains meant that roads were in poor condition making journey times long and unpredictable. This meant extending the data collection period and transferring enumerators to routes where journey times were longer than expected. 2. Difficulty in finding vehicles: Because little of the movement of goods in South Sudan is conducted by major haulage firms, enumerators had to look for vehicles travelling to the required destinations on a one-off basis by

going to common departure locations. Although enumerators were asked to try to vary the type of item carried, size of truck etc it was not possible to plan a stratified sample. 3. Refusal of drivers: This survey was heavily dependent on the goodwill and willingness of truck drivers to cooperate with the enumerators. A number of them were unwilling to take the responsibility of an additional passenger, especially given the potentially controversial nature of the survey. 4. Choice of routes: On many of the journeys there is the possibility of a choice of route to take. For example there are a number of route options when traveling from Juba to Wau. This makes the analysis of the data problematic since the length of each route differs as well as the number and location of the checkpoints.

The collected data has a number of limitations, listed below. Some of these could be reduced in follow-up surveys.

The survey is not representative of trade within South Sudan: Although there have been some partial studies of trade in South Sudan2, because volume and value of trade along the major trade routes is not known, it was not possible to make the cost-to-market survey representative of all trade in South Sudan. If a comprehensive trade survey is done in future, it will be possible to weight the journeys according to the importance of the routes. Care should be taken when interpreting any figures that are the average across all trips taken: these are biased towards the most frequently completed routes in the survey.

The location of check-points is imprecise: To ensure that the enumerators were inconspicuous at the check-points, it was decided that enumerators should not carry GPS devices. Enumerators were asked to describe the check-point locations precisely. The check-points were then coded according to the descriptions. For minor check-points, it is difficult to perfectly align check-points from different journeys. Since only a few enumerators travelled the same route several times, it has been possible to roughly align the check-points from different journeys along the same route, combining very small check-points which were close together and difficult to distinguish. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to fully line-up check-points between routes where sections of the routes overlap (e.g. on the Juba-Aweil and Juba-Wau routes, and on Nadapal-Juba and Torit-Juba).

Information on journey start/stop times is not recorded: This makes it difficult to determine the total journey time. Rather than approximate total journey time by time stopped at first stop to time started at last stop, following consultations with users it was decided to approximate a benchmark driving time using a constant speed of travel plus rest time (see page 21 for details of how this was calculated). Follow up surveys should record start and stop time, and number of days of the journey.

Overnight stops are difficult to categorize: Many of the routes surveyed are long or form part of a longer journey, and therefore require an overnight stop. Drivers plan their journeys so that overnight stops coincide with known check- points for security and time-saving reasons. This makes it difficult to determine how much of the stoppage time is waiting time and how much is resting time. For the purposes of analysis, enumerators were asked at which stops they were forced to stay overnight. The total time stopped for these was recorded. For stops where staying overnight was optional, the stoppage time was recorded as missing.

Information on the value of goods may be unreliable: To determine how significant the payments at check-points are for traders, value of cargo is recorded. Drivers were asked to estimate the value of their cargo. Unfortunately, no formal checks of this were done by the enumerators. In the training enumerators were instructed to estimate the cargo value using prices at the final destination. However there seems to have been some confusion on this issue between the enumerators and drivers and it is not always clear whether the value recorded was the price at which the cargo was purchased or its market value at its destination. Particularly on the Kaya-Juba and Nimule-Juba routes, this difference

2 Sudan Referendum Impacts on Market Flows and Livelihoods Fewsnet; Southern Sudan – Northern Great Lakes Region: Cross- Border Trade Study World Bank 12

National Bureau of Statistics may be very significant. In future surveys, drivers on international routes can be asked for the invoices. Another possibility is consulting the unit values in the manual used by the customs authority. This would also be a way of investigating whether customs payments are correct.

Payments are not clearly categorized as ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’: Since there is no evidence of any legal authority for revenue collection at check-points, enumerators were not asked to judge whether a payment was ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’. However, available information suggested that some payments are accompanied by provision of a receipt, while others are not. Whilst this does not indicate the ‘legality’ of the payment, it was decided that payments accompanied by provision of a receipt would be classified as ‘official’ for the purposes of this study. At each check-point only the sum of receipted and unreceipted payment was recorded: at major check-points several payments may be given to different officials.

The survey contains a mixture of internal check-points and major international check-points, and the international check- points are not always clearly identified: There are major international check-points at Kaya, Nimule and Nadapal. Enumerators were instructed to board vehicles before they passed through these check-points on the way into South Sudan, and disembark after these check-points on the way out of South Sudan. However, given that the enumerators boarded the trucks on the South Sudan side of the border, and not in Uganda or Kenya, enumerators often boarded or disembarked while a vehicle was waiting at a check-point, so there are a small number of journeys that omit the international check-point or where the full time waiting is not recorded.

Overview of Vehicles and Routes Surveyed

Figure 1 shows the routes covered in the survey. The most significant trade routes from Uganda to Kenya (via Nimule and Kaya) are covered. The most significant trade route from Kenya (via Nadapal) is covered. Trade routes running north from Juba to Bor, Wau, and Aweil are covered. Routes from North to South Sudan via Unity and Upper Nile were not covered.

Figure 1: Routes surveyed

Table 1 shows the number of vehicles surveyed on each route and gives information on the type and value of goods carried. The most heavily surveyed routes were Juba-Torit and the international trade routes with Uganda and Kenya, Juba-Nimule, Juba-Kaya and Juba-Nadapal. Almost half the vehicles surveyed were carrying food or beverages. Particularly common were cereals and bottled drinks. Over a quarter were carrying ‘manufactured materials’, a category which includes building materials (commonly cement and processed iron/steel products), as well as consumer items.

The vehicles surveyed suggest that trade is highly asymmetric along the routes. For example, average value of goods carried by vehicles travelling from Nimule to Juba is almost nine times as high as from Juba to Nimule. On many of the routes out of South Sudan (Bor-Juba, Juba-Kaya, Juba-Nimule, Juba-Torit-Nadapal) enumerator travelled in goods vehicles carrying empty crates, scrap metal or even passengers: vehicles transport goods from Uganda to South Sudan and return almost empty.

National Bureau of Statistics

Table 1: Overview of journeys by main item carried and average value of goods

Passengers, Column2 Crude Manufactur empty Average Number of materials ed crates and value of journeys Food Beverages and fuel materials scrap metal goods(SDG) Aweil - Juba 2 1 1 0 0 0 105000 Juba - Aweil 2 0 0 0 2 0 53055 Aweil - Wau 1 0 1 0 0 0 15750 Wau - Aweil 2 0 0 1 1 0 20825 Wau - Juba 5 2 1 2 0 0 153980 Juba – Wau (via 1 0 0 0 1 0 44040 Mundri) War awar - Wau 4 2 0 1 1 0 41092 Wau - War Awar 2 2 0 0 0 0 30413 Juba - War awar 1 0 0 0 1 0 37215 Bor - Juba 12 4 3 2 0 6 7138 Juba - Bor 12 2 2 0 8 0 39005 Kaya - Juba 8 5 0 0 3 0 31267 Juba - Kaya 8 1 2 0 1 4 8688 Nadapal - Juba 9 3 0 2 4 0 67301 Juba - Nadapal 9 3 2 1 2 1 22158 Torit - Juba 15 9 1 3 3 0 27094 Juba - Torit 15 5 2 0 6 3 20485 Nimule - Juba 17 6 1 4 6 0 72380 Juba - Nimule 19 6 3 1 2 7 8248 Juba - Wau (via Yirol) 1 0 1 0 0 0 40800 Juba - Wau (via Yambio) 2 0 2 0 0 0 25620 All routes 147 51 22 17 41 21 36428

Findings

 Check-points are numerous Over all routes, there is on average one check-point per 25km.3 Table 2 shows the numbers of check-points on the routes covered by the survey. Not every vehicle has to stop at every check-point. The numbers in the table are the average number of stops per journey. When the average number of stops is different for vehicles travelling in different directions along the route, the larger number has been taken.4

Table 2: Number of check-points

Number of No. of check- Distance in checkpoints points per Column1 Km one way 100km Juba-Aweil 746 32 4 Wau-Aweil 144 9 6 Juba-Wau (via Mundri) 602 24 4 Wau-War a War 198 14 7 Juba-War a War 800 39 5 Juba-Bor 192 5 3 Juba-Kaya 235 12 5 Juba-Nadapal 338 11 3 Juba-Torit 128 4 3 Juba-Nimule 163 6 4

The two most significant trade routes into Juba from Uganda are via Nimule and Kaya. A vehicle travelling from Nimule to Juba must stop on average 6 times over 163km or 4 times per 100km. A vehicle travelling from Kaya to Juba must stop on average 12 times over 235km, or 5 times per 100 km.

There are more check-points per 100km on the northerly trade routes than there are in the South. Between Wau and War-a-War there are 7 check-points per 100km and between Wau and Aweil there are 6 check-points per 100km. This may be due to insecurity near the border with North Sudan.

 Payment is widespread On all routes surveyed, drivers made some payment almost every time they were forced to stop. On the Juba- Torit and Torit-Juba routes, drivers made a payment at an average of 93% of the check-points encountered. On every other route, drivers made a payment at an average of 97% or more of the check-points they stopped at. It is clear that payments are not only made at the international borders.

3 Here taking an average ‘over all routes’ means adding the average number of check-points per 100km for each route and dividing by the number of different routes, where the same journey in two different directions counts as two routes. This can be misleading as some of the ‘routes’ overlap (e.g. Juba-Torit and Juba-Kaya) so the same check-points appear on more than one route. Care must be taken when interpreting the aggregate figures. 4 For example, vehicles travelling from Juba to Kaya stopped on average 8 times where as vehicles travelling from Kaya to Juba stopped on average 12 times. The figure 12 is used in table 2. 16

National Bureau of Statistics

 Most individual payments are small but total payment is significant 47% of all payments recorded during the survey were less than 20 SDG.5 Only 4% were more than 500 SDG, and these were concentrated at the border posts along the international routes: on the Nimule-Juba route 28% of payments were more than 500 SDG.

Despite most payments being small in value, payments made over the whole journey can be substantial. Table 3 shows total payment per trip, payment per check-point, and payment per 100km, as well as payment per trip and payment per 100km expressed as a percentage of the total value of goods carried. Table 4 shows the same information for the major international import routes excluding the international border posts. Table 5 shows the cost inflation Figure 2 shows absolute payment and Figure 3 payment as a percentage of value of goods on selected routes.

Table 3: Trip Payment

Payment per Column1 Payment per Payment, 100km, percent Total payment check-point Payment per percent of total of total value of per trip (SDG) (SDG) 100km (SDG) value of goods goods Aweil - Juba 1537 61 206 2.8 0.4 Juba - Aweil 908 28 122 1.8 0.2 Aweil - Wau 390 43 271 2.5 1.7 Wau - Aweil 270 33 188 0.4 0.3 Wau - Juba 1792 77 298 3.0 0.5 Juba - Wau (via 1036 55 172 2.4 0.4 Mundri) War awar - Wau 636 45 321 2.8 1.4 Wau - War Awar 430 31 217 1.6 0.8 Juba - War awar 1504 39 188 4.0 0.5 Bor - Juba 240 47 125 8.2 4.3 Juba - Bor 731 145 381 0.5 0.2 Kaya - Juba 941 81 400 4.9 2.1 Juba - Kaya 183 22 78 5.9 2.5 Nadapal - Juba 4797 436 1419 4.7 1.4 Juba - Nadapal 1213 117 359 8.2 2.4 Torit - Juba 1614 511 1261 4.7 3.7 Juba - Torit 426 120 333 3.3 2.6 Nimule - Juba 7026 1225 4310 15.4 9.5 Juba - Nimule 167 36 102 6.7 4.1 Juba - Wau (via 385 26 60 0.9 0.1 Yirol) Juba - Wau (via 1168 55 155 6.4 0.9 Yambio)

5 Because each route was travelled more than once, the same check-points are counted many times. The figure is biased towards the most frequently travelled routes. Zero payments are included under “Less than 20 SDG”. 17

Table 4: Trip Payment (excluding international import posts)

Payment per Payment per Payment, 100km, percent Column1 Total payment check-point Payment per percent of total of total value of per trip (SDG) (SDG) 100km (SDG) value of goods goods Kaya - Juba 707 60 301 3.7 1.6 Nadapal - Juba 2039 185 603 2.3 0.7 Nimule - Juba 2648 461 1625 5.9 3.6

Figure 2: Absolute payment on selected routes

8 7 6 5

4 points ('000SDG)

- From Juba 3

2 To Juba 1 0 To Juba (without international

border posts) Total payment Totalat check

National Bureau of Statistics Figure 3: Payment as a percentage of value on selected routes

18 16 14 12 10

8 From Juba points value points ofof (% - 6 To Juba

goods) 4 2 0 To Juba (without international

border posts) Total payment check at payment Total

For all but two routes surveyed, average payment per 100km exceeds 100 SDG. For more than half the routes surveyed, payment per 100 km exceeds 200 SDG. For 10 of 21 routes surveyed, drivers pay 4% or more of the value of items carried. Even on purely internal routes, drivers pay out up to 8% of the value of items carried.6

Payment varies substantially over the different routes. It is highest for Nimule-Juba at 7026 SDG or 4310 SDG per 100km. This is 15.4% of the total value of goods carried. While the largest payment on this route is at the international border post at Nimule, table 4 shows that even excluding customs payments at the international border, payment on the Nimule-Juba route is still 5.9% of the total value of goods carried. This is driven by very large payments at the border between Eastern Equatoria and Central Equatoria at Gumbo (see Focus: Major trade routes with Uganda). High internal payments on the Nadapal-Juba and Torit-Juba routes are also driven by payments at Gumbo. High payments per 100km are also seen between Wau and Juba (298 SDG/100km), War-a- War and Wau (321 SDG/100km) Juba and Bor (381 SDG/100km) and Torit and Juba (1261 SDG/100km).

On each route, there are many minor check-points with small payments and a few major check-points with large payments. As well as the international border posts at Kaya, Nimule and Nadapal, major check-points include Gumbo on the Nimule-Juba, Nadapal-Juba and Torit-Juba routes, Yei and Jebel Kujur on the Kaya-Juba route, Juba Bridge and Bor on the Juba-Bor route, and Gurei, Rumbek and Tonj on the route from Juba to Wau, Aweil and War-a-War.

 Low value cargoes pay more as a percent of the value of goods transported Table 5 shows average payment and payment as a percentage of value of cargo over all journeys7. Table 6 shows the same information with the Nimule, Kaya and Nadapal check-points excluded along the major import routes from Uganda and Kenya.

6 Care should be taken when interpreting payment as a percent of total value, especially for the ‘exit’ routes (Juba-Kaya, Juba- Nimule, Juba-Nadapal and Bor-Juba). The high payments as a percent of total value are driven by the extreme low value of the goods being transported out of South Sudan: vehicles transporting goods from Uganda to South Sudan often return to Uganda almost empty, carrying scrap metal, empty beverage bottles or passengers. Small lump-sum payments incurred at minor check-points on the way out of South Sudan appear large relative to the value of the goods. 7 This is an average over all journeys so more frequently completed journeys are weighted more heavily 19

Table 5: Trip payment by value of cargo

Grouped value of cargo

Column1 Less than 5000-10000 10000- 30000- More than 5000 SDG SDG 30000 SDG 50000 SDG 50000 SDG Total payment 157 298 770 2656 4842 per trip (SDG) Payment, 10.3 4.1 4.5 6.6 4.1 percent of total value of goods

Table 6: Trip payment by value of cargo (excluding international import posts)

Grouped value of cargo

Column1 Less than 5000-10000 10000- 30000- More than 5000 SDG SDG 30000 SDG 50000 SDG 50000 SDG Total payment 157 289 571 1368 2514 per trip (SDG) Payment, 10.3 4.0 3.2 3.4 2.3 percent of total value of goods

Table 5 shows that low value cargoes tend to pay more as a percentage of cargo value. Table 6 shows this effect is much greater when large payments of goods being imported to South Sudan at the Nimule, Kaya and Nadapal border posts are excluded. The effect holds for individual routes. For example on the Nimule-Juba route, cargoes with value 10,000-30,000 SDG paid on average 20% of value, cargoes between 30,000-50,000 SDG paid 17% of value and cargoes above 50,000 SDG paid 9% of value (there were no cargoes with value less than 10,000 SDG). On the Kaya-Juba route, cargoes with value 5,000-10,000 SDG paid 10% of value, cargoes between 10,000-30,000 SDG paid 5%, cargoes between 30,000-50,000 SDG paid 4% of value and cargoes over 50,000 SDG paid 1% of value. The effect also holds when cargo is grouped by main item carried. Vehicles carrying food worth less than 5000 SDG paid on average 6% of value, compared with 4% for food worth 5,000- 10,000 SDG and 10,000-30,000 SDG, 3% for food worth 30,000-50,000 SDG and 2% for food worth more than 50,000 SDG.

While there are very few check-points where payment does not vary at all between vehicles (i.e. ‘lump-sum’ or ‘fixed’ payments), for most internal check-points (excluding major inter-state check-points such as Gumbo) the amount paid does not vary greatly with value of goods carried. This means that vehicles carrying lower value goods tend to pay more relative to the value of goods.

 Most individual payments are unreceipted

National Bureau of Statistics Over all trips made, receipted payments were made at an average of 43% of check-points encountered8 and unreceipted payments were made at an average of 86% of check-points. At many check-points, both receipted and unreceipted payments were made. On some routes, the prevalence of receipts was higher: from Juba to Bor, for example, a receipted payment was made at 64% of check-points and an unreceipted payment at 43% of check-points. Over all journeys, receipted payment made up an average of 53% of the total payment made during the journey. 76% of the total payment made during the survey was receipted: receipted payments are less frequent but larger. The issue of a receipt does not necessarily mean that a payment is authorized.

 There is high time-cost of waiting at check-points Waiting at check-points increases transit time by an average of 65% across all routes.9 An approximate benchmark driving time was calculated by assuming that vehicles move at 35 km/hour along the road, and rest for one hour every four (so, for example, driving time for the 602km journey from Juba to Wau via Mundri is 21 hours: 17 hours plus four hours taken for rest).10

Table 7 shows time stopped at check-points over the journey, time stopped per check-point, time stopped per 100km and time stopped as a percentage of bench-mark driving time. Table 8 shows the same information for the Kaya-Juba, Nimule-Juba and Nadapal-Juba, excluding the border check-points at Kaya, Nimule and Nadapal. Figure 3 shows time stopped for selected routes.

Table 7: Time stopped at check-points

Time stopped as Column1 Benchmark Time stopped at Time stopped Time stopped a percentage of Distance (km) driving time check-points per check-point per 100km total driving (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) time Aweil - Juba 746 26h19 9h17 0h22 1h15 35 Juba - Aweil 746 26h19 29h41 0h53 3h59 113 Aweil - Wau 144 5h07 1h24 0h09 0h58 27 Wau - Aweil 144 5h07 1h21 0h11 0h56 26 Wau - Juba 602 21h12 6h15 0h16 1h02 29 Juba – Wau (via 602 21h12 10h23 0h33 1h43 49 Mundri) War awar - Wau 198 6h39 4h55 0h20 2h29 74 Wau - War Awar 198 6h39 1h42 0h07 0h52 26 Juba - War awar 800 27h51 11h34 0h18 1h27 42 Bor - Juba 192 6h29 2h26 0h29 1h16 38 Juba - Bor 192 6h29 0h46 0h09 0h24 12 Kaya - Juba 235 7h43 24h32 2h09 10h26 318 Juba - Kaya 235 7h43 5h03 0h32 2h09 65 Nadapal - Juba 338 11h39 8h15 0h45 2h26 71

8 Percentage of check-points with receipted and unreceipted payments is calculated for each trip, and then the average across all trips is taken 9 This is a simple average across all routes given in table 7. Check-points on routes with overlapping sections (e.g. the three Juba- Wau routes) are therefore weighted more heavily. 10 This may tend to under-estimate driving time since it does not adequately account for overnight stops. For security reasons, vehicles only move during daylight hours. For the longer routes overnight stops cannot be avoided. Even the shorter routes covered (e.g. Nimule-Juba and Kaya-Juba) usually form part of a longer route (e.g. Kampala-Juba) so often involve overnight stops. It also does not take into account differences in speed of vehicles due to age and condition of the vehicle or condition of the road. 21

Juba - Nadapal 338 11h39 2h09 0h12 0h38 19 Torit - Juba 128 3h39 4h43 1h05 3h41 129 Juba - Torit 128 3h39 2h15 0h37 1h45 61 Nimule - Juba 163 5h39 6h20 1h11 3h53 112 Juba - Nimule 163 5h39 4h56 1h04 3h02 87 Juba - Wau (via 640 22h17 2h04 0h08 0h19 9 Yirol) Juba - Wau (via 755 26h34 4h19 0h13 0h34 16 Yambio)

Table 8: Time stopped at check-points (excluding international border posts)

Time stopped as Time stopped at Time stopped Time stopped a percentage of Column1 Benchmark check-points per check-point per 100km total driving Distance (km) Driving Time (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) time Kaya - Juba 235 7h43 18h56 1h39 8h04 245 Nadapal - Juba 338 11h39 6h01 0h33 1h47 52 Nimule - Juba 163 5h39 3h54 0h44 2h24 69

Figure 4: Time stopped on selected routes

points (hours) points - 15 From Juba 10 To Juba 5

Total time time check at Total To Juba (without international border posts) 0

National Bureau of Statistics For all but seven routes surveyed, waiting time per 100km is more than one hour. For all but four routes, time stopped at check-points is more than 25% of driving time. A simple average across all routes gives a waiting time of 2 hours 9 minutes per 100km or 65% of driving time.11 Waiting time is highest on the Kaya-Juba route at 24 hours 32 minutes or 10 hours and 26 minutes per 100km, more than three times bench-mark driving time. Even when the international border post at Kaya is excluded, waiting time is still 8 hours and 4 minutes per 100km. This is driven by enforced overnight stops at Yei and/or Jebel Kujur (see Focus: Major trade routes from Uganda). Waiting time is also extremely high on the Nadapal-Juba, Nimule-Juba and Torit-Juba routes. With the international border posts at Nadapal and Nimule removed, waiting time remains moderately high because of Gumbo, the check-point between Eastern and Central Equatoria. In contrast to payment, waiting time is also relatively high on the exit routes out of South Sudan: vehicles must wait to clear customs even if they pay little because they are carrying low value items.

Delays at check-points increase the cost of transporting goods. As well as paying out money at check-points, vehicles must make longer trips as a result of check-points. This is likely to be reflected in higher consumer prices, lower profits of traders/wholesalers/haulage firms, or both.

 The most commonly observed officials are police and traffic police Figure 4 shows officials present at check-points as a percentage of the 1255 check-points encounters during the survey. Police and traffic police are most common, sighted at 51% and 50% of check-points respectively. In many cases, more than one type of official is present. The SPLA was present at 34% of check-points. On some routes, such as Nadapal-Juba and Bor-Juba, this was much higher.

Figure 5: Officials present at check-points

60 50 51 50

40 34

point stops - 30 21 20 13 15 11 10 3

0 Percentage of Percentage all check

Note: More than one official could be present at checkpoints, making the sum greater than 100%

11 This average is simply the sum of waiting times given in table 7 divided by 21. This tends to weight sections of road where routes overlap more heavily. 23

Focus: Major trade routes from Uganda This section focuses on imports entering South Sudan along the two most important trade routes with Uganda: Nimule- Juba and Kaya-Juba.

Nimule-Juba

National Bureau of Statistics Figure 6: Map of Nimule-Juba route and summary table

Average time Average stopped per payment per Column1 journey (mins) journey (SDG)  163 km Nimule Border 146 4380  On average 6 checkpoints Nimule Town 7 34  6h20 stopped or 112% of driving time Nimule Exit/  Payment 7026 SDG or 15% of total Jebel Gordon 5 8 Pageri value of goods 40 41 Ayii/ Kit 5 4 24 Lokiliri/ REI junction 1 4

Gumbo 173 2473

Juba Bridge 2 7 Juba Town 3 55

Figure 7: Time stopped on the Nimule-Juba route

Figure 8: Payment on the Nimule-Juba route

Payment on the Nimule-Juba route is higher than on any other route, in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total value of goods carried. The largest payment (an average of 9% of goods carried) is incurred at Nimule border post. 26% of the payment at Nimule border post was unreceipted; it might be the case that not all of the payment incurred at the international border post is authorized.

There is another major check-point at Gumbo, between Eastern Equatoria and Central Equatoria. Waiting time at Gumbo is 173 minutes: this is higher than at the international border post at Nimule. Payment at Gumbo is an average of 5%. Vehicles moving to Juba through Nimule pay Eastern Equatoria and Central Equatoria duties, as well as the SPLM tariffs levied at Nimule.

Check-points other than Nimule and Gumbo account for 2% of overall payment but 16% of total time stopped at check- points. 26

National Bureau of Statistics

Kaya-Juba Figure 9: Map of Kaya-Juba route and summary table

Average time Average stopped per payment per Column1 journey (mins) journey (SDG) Kaya Border 336 234 Hass petro station 6 4 Bazi 4 7 Morobo 8 21 Gulumbi 2 4 Yei Custom 425 94 Yei police station 11 22 Mahad 6 22 Lainya 10 31 Ganji 5 14 Jebel Kujur 657 485 27

Juba Town 2 3

 235 km  12checkpoints  24h32 stopped or 318% of driving time  Payment 941 SDG or 5% of total value of goods

Figure 10: Time stopped on the Kaya-Juba route

National Bureau of Statistics Figure 11: Payment on the Kaya-Juba route

Three major checkpoints at Kaya, Yei Customs and Jebel Kujur are associated with the largest payments and longest time spent waiting. The waiting time of 24h32 or 318% of total driving time is extremely high. It is driven by enforced overnight stops at Kaya border, then Yei and/or Jebel Kujur. Average waiting time at Jebel Kujur is almost 11 hours, because 5 out of 8 vehicles surveyed arrived there after the check-point had closed and were forced to stay the night. Check-points other than Kaya, Yei and Jebel Kujur account for 4% of time stopped and 14% of total payment.

The average payment at Kaya border post is surprisingly small. Since SPLM tariffs are 5% or greater on items carried, the results here suggest that not all the customs payment is being picked up by the survey. The payment at Kaya border post is surprisingly uniform: 5/8 payments recorded there were between 225 SDG and 265 SDG, despite the value of goods carried varying between 8000 SDG and 65000 SDG. Enumerators confirmed that they boarded at Kaya border post, that all payment was recorded and that goods were not exempt from duty. This may be something to examine more closely. It is possible that payment at Kaya border is lower than 5% of value of goods because customs officials use either the goods invoice or standardized unit prices, where as in the survey, drivers were asked to estimate value of goods carried. Average payment at Jebel Kujur is approximately twice as high as at Kaya border post.

Average payment is much lower, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of value of goods carried, on the Kaya-Juba route than on the Nimule-Juba route. As a percentage of value of goods carried, payment on the Kaya-Juba route is a third as high as payment on the Nimule-Juba route. However, time stopped at check-points is four times as high on the Kaya-Juba route as on the Nimule-Juba route. This suggests that traders choosing between transporting goods via Kaya or via Nimule must trade off these two effects. Various factors, including the value of the cargo, whether items are perishable, and whether cargo is exempt from customs duty are likely to influence choice of route.

Conclusion and Recommendations Conclusion Check-points are very common along all major trade routes in South Sudan. Individual payments made are low relative to value of goods carried but total payment is significant. A large percentage of payment is made away from major international border points at check-points which are not authorized to collect revenue. Much of this payment is unreceipted. Stoppage time is also extremely costly to traders. On the Kaya-Juba route, stopping at check-points triples transit time.

Recommendations 1. Take steps against unnecessary check-points and unofficial payments Over all routes surveyed, there was an average of more than two hours waiting per 100km and on most routes payment per 100km exceeded 200 SDG. Some waiting time at security check-points is likely to be necessary along all trade routes. However, reducing time and eliminating payment at check-points which are not at international borders must be a priority: eliminating the Jebel Kujur check-point alone would cut average journey time on the Kaya-Juba route by 11 hours. Small check-points tend to affect low-value cargoes more, since payment does not vary significantly with value of cargo, which may be detrimental to the development of industry and internal markets in South Sudan.

2. Ensure co-ordination of revenue collection between states The longest waits and largest internal payments recorded in the survey occurred at the major check-points between state boundaries. An important example of this is Gumbo, along the Nimule-Juba and Nadapal-Juba routes. The ‘double-taxation’ of vehicles by Eastern and Central Equatoria is costly and time-consuming. A system of sharing revenue collected at the international borders between states would help to reduce the time- cost of double taxation.

3. Reduce time spent at major check-points Some waiting is inevitable at major international check-points such as those at Nadapal, Kaya and Juba. As South Sudan is now independent, there will be other international check-points on the Northern routes. Increasing the number of staff at major check-points and automating/computerizing the process, as well as reducing the number of different forms that must be completed and payments that must be made at the border, would all help to reduce this time. It would also improve monitoring of payments collected.

4. Improve administrative data collection and conduct a comprehensive trade survey The quality of official customs data on volumes and values of trade is currently poor: although data is collected as vehicles pass through customs, compilation of this data is incomplete. It is difficult to analyze the aggregate effect of check-points on consumer prices and trader profits without data on the volume and value of trade occurring on major trade routes in South Sudan. Better administrative data needs to be collected at border posts and a comprehensive trade survey should be conducted to assess volume and values of trade on each of the key routes. Also useful would be a closer analysis of haulage costs along the routes, as well as consumer price comparison between South Sudan and neighbouring countries.

5. Conduct regular follow-up surveys Follow-up surveys would help MoFEP to evaluate its progress in eliminating unauthorized revenue collection at check-points.

National Bureau of Statistics

Appendix: Questionnaire

Type of Good SITC Quantity Total value Transported Code Description (Specify Unit) (SDG) 1 2 3 4

Route:

Surveyor Name:

Driver Characteristics Name Age Nationality State

Monthly Salary (SDG) Education Sex Years of Experience Languages Spoken

Code: Other specify: Education: 1.No Schooling 2.Some Primary 3.Completed Primary 4.Secondary 5.Post Secondary 6.Khalwa/Religious Schooling Nationality: 1.Sudanese 2.Ugandan 3.Kenyan 4.Somalian 5.Ethiopean 6.Eritrean 7. Other (specify) Language: 1.Arabic 2.English 3.Swahili 4.Other (specify) Sex: 1.Male 2.Female

National Bureau of Statistics

Truck Characteristics Year of Country of Registration Manufacture registration Size (Tans) Overweight Papers

Other Specify:

Country of registration code: 1.South Sudan 2.North Sudan 3.Uganda 4.Kenya 5. Other. Specify

Insurance Papers Value of Goods (SDG) Type of truck

Code: 1. Truck 2. Articulated Good Vehicle 3. Truck Trailer Combination

Checkpoints Form

Check Point Official Unofficial Location Operator Payment Payment Number of Officers Number of # Description (Please Stop Start collected Collected Visible Guns Visible (Please be when other Time Time (SDG) (SDG) precise and specify) clear) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Operators code: 1. County authorities 2. Payam authorities 3. Boma authorities 4. SPLA 5. Traffic police 6. Police 7. Customs 8. Other

National Bureau of Statistics

National Bureau of Statistics P.O. Box 137, Juba Tel: 0811 823 835 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.ssccse.org