2020 Multi-Sector Household Survey Report

FINAL DRAFT to be validated through consultation and interview of local leaders

April 2020

Contents FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4 DASHBOARD ...... 6 COMMUNITY CONSOLE ...... 9 PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY and SCOPE ...... 10 PEOPLE WELFARE ...... 14 1. LIVELIHOOD ...... 14 2. MAIN PROBLEMS and RESILIENCE (COPING CAPACITY) ...... 17 3. FOOD SECURITY...... 20 4. HEALTH ...... 23 5. HYGIENE ...... 26 6. EDUCATION ...... 28 7. PROTECTION and GENDER ...... 32 ECONOMY ...... 37 8. AGRICULTURE...... 37 9. LIVESTOCK FARMING ...... 51 10. ACCESS TO CONSUMER MARKETS, OTHER EXCHANGES and EXPENDITURES ...... 56 11. PRODUCTIVE ASSETS, ENERGY and NON-FOOD ITEMS ...... 60 12. HUMANITARIAN & DEVELOPMENT AID ...... 61 PEACE and PARTECIPATION ...... 62 13. NATURAL RESOURCES RELATED DISPUTES ...... 62 14. SAFETY and CRIMES ...... 64 15. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION and LOCAL GOVERNANCE ...... 65 16. MIGRATION and IDPs ...... 69

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

This report was made possible thanks to the kind contribution of the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation and the Food Agency Organization

Authors Mariam Joshi (AVSI Foundation Coordinator of Monitoring and Evaluation

with the support of

Bruno Nazim Baroni (AVSI Foundation Head of Monitoring and Quality Assurance)

and

Kuti Elizabeth and Papa John Martin (survey managers and lead enumerators)

AVSI Foundation, South

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS

At the end of January 2020, the overall food security condition of Central and East1 Magwi’s families was largely consistent with a situation of stress (IPC phase 2), with 12% of households with a poor Food Consumption Score (FCS), or 18% suffer from moderate hunger (HHS). Still, in the northern part of the county the scenario is more consistent with that of a crisis (IPC phase 3). In Agoro, over 1/3 of the population has a poor FCS, followed by Iwire and Omeo, with both around 20%. The opposite situation is true for the rest of Magwi, where families are for 2/3 in good food security conditions, and 1/3 in moderate food insecurity (and only a negligible population is suffering severe food insecurity). Overall, these indicators show much better conditions for Magwi in comparison to other counties in Eastern State (EES). Moreover, considering a bimodal rain season, hence a less harsh lean season, one should regard food security of Magwi really as a different category compared to the rest of EES. However, positive signs should be viewed with caution as the level of resilience of this population isanything but solid. 28% of household’s food security condition is still classified as borderline, almost 1/3 of the population spends more than 75% of their budget on food (economic vulnerability), and, unlike agropastoral communities in , the population of Magwi does not have direct access to meat products, hence relies on trade for it, i.e. a nutrient-rich diet depends on price stability.

Focusing on the livelihood conditions, Magwi’s population is composed almost entirely of agriculturalists. Basic staple crops production, cash crops and casual labour related to agriculture make up the main occupation across communities. There is ample evidence to suggest that Magwi’s population are more market-oriented in comparison to the neighbouring county of . This report finds that there are fewer monocrop farmers, and a small yet significant 12% of farmers (triple that of Torit) that cultivate more than 5 hectares. The use of ox-ploughing or tractors, albeit limited is much more common in Magwi. Moreover, farmers in Magwi are fairly equally inclined to sell around 15% of their produce (more than the average 10% found in Torit), and of those obtaining mostly cash for their occupation, 75% can buy more than food (when only 30% can in Torit); This is most likely helped by the fact that Magwi’s population generally enjoys better access to markets in comparison to other areas of .

In this setting, market-related dynamics are discernible. For example, farmers investing in agricultural inputs and in more advanced agricultural tools are markedly better off, while smallholder farmers (cultivating only private land of a size of less than 1 hectare) show more precarious food security conditions. However, such dynamics are still feeble, as witnessed by the fact that only 1 in 5 households obtains mostly cash as a result of their occupation, and families bartering goods seem to do better than those selling to the market. In brief, while Magwi shows findings that are consistent with a subsistence economy, compared to other areas, including Torit, it is much more significant the group of farmers who are engaged in embryonic commercial farming. It is important to note that these differences are well-rooted; for instance, it is a fact that in only one-third of adults has no experience of schooling, as compared to two-thirds in .

1 This report is based on a survey conducted in East and Central Magwi. The are formerly known as Pagori county was not included. Throughout the document, any reference to Magwi is in fact a reference to East and Central Magwi.

INTRODUCTION

Looking now at the social aspects of the county, on a more positive note, surprisingly, almost no household with elderly and IDPs/Returnees present worse food security conditions. There is evidence to suggest that these informal social safety nets provide a much needed and strong support among the members of the enlarged families and between the community. This is further confirmed by the fact that farmers give away for free as much as 7% of their produce (as compared to 15% for sale). When it comes to general access to services, once again there are important differences between payams. Households in Owinykibul have the greatest distance to schools and the lowest child enrolment rates. It is worth noting that the requests coming from the population are aligned with the level of coverage of services (or the lack of them). Families in Owinykibul demand more assistance to education while those in Omeo, where the greatest share of households must walk further than 30 minutes to reach a water source have improved water management as their top priority.

Improved security conditions are reported almost unanimously across Magwi (97% of households did so). Nonetheless, levels of crime are prominent, in particular those against property. Very concerningly, murder is the second most reported crime in the county and the most reported crime in Pajok. This payam in fact, witnesses the highest incidence of crime and stark numbers in abduction and the burning down of houses. On a different note, in Owinykibul, although households report high numbers of natural resource disputes, the level of crimes are the lowest in the county. Finally, looking at the reasons why people have left during the last 12 months, lack of security affects particularly the payams in the north part of Magwi – Ogoro and Omeo – the payams also with the worse food security conditions, located close to Imurok, the payam of Torit county with the worse security and food security condition.

Overall, the movement of people throughout Magwi describes a situation of “stabilization”. Within the last year, the inflow of people reached around 18,000, while the outflow numbers stood at 8,400. There is great reason to believe that the overall greater stability in security and economic conditions are incentivizing families to relocate or return to Magwi, especially from refugee camps abroad (most likely from ). However, the return of such families should not be taken as permanent: there is a significant number of people leaving, 30% of whom report to do so in search of better education and employment.

Finally, it is important to emphasize the marked differences running across Magwi. The northern part of the county, Iwire, Omeo and especially Agoro, in fact, have agronomic conditions that are different compared to the rest of the county, and is where food insecurity is concentrated. In the south, Lobone, where one-third of farmers uses tractors or ox-ploughs, could be regarded as an extension of northern Uganda. Finally, Pajok, is still visibly recovering from the destruction that took place in previous years.

On the whole, Magwi needs to receive greater and more adequate support. There is no question that its favourable agroclimatic conditions are not leveraged by the use of tractors or ox-ploughs. Furthermore, there would be both economic and nutritional benefits to supporting livestock farming with access to veterinary and extension services. The detrimental effects of the 2016/2017 insecurity crisis are still clearly visible in Magwi when access to social services is considered. Great improvement is therefore essential especially in the areas of education and healthcare. Special attention must be paid to Agoro and Pajok where the crude death rate for children under the age of 5 years is disturbingly high - almost 6 out of 10,000 children died per day in the recall period of 90 days in these payams. The general improvement of security conditions should be regarded as an opportunity to sophisticate development-oriented projects.

INTRODUCTION

DASHBOARD

PEOPLE WELFARE LIVELIHOOD and RESILIENCE (Economic diversification) 85% of HHs derive its main source of living from agriculture related work (Economic specialization) 17% of HHs sell produce to obtain cash (Economic vulnerability) 27% of HHs spend more than 75% of its budget on food purchases (40% in Agoro and Palwar) (Recent economic trend) 35% of HHs reports improvement in HH income over last year; 51% the same and 14% worsened (Key contributing factor) Of HHs that report worsening livelihood, 47% is due to loss of crops (Coping strategies) 20% of HHs have adopted crisis livelihood coping strategies – depleting assets to meet needs (Resilience) 7% of HHs have already exhausted some livelihood coping strategies

FOOD SECURITY (Access to food among children) 2.5 meals are consumed daily by children below 5 years not breastfeeding (Access to food) 19% of HHs is in a state of moderate or severe hunger (>37% in Agoro and Omeo) (Access to nutrient diet) 12% of HHs have a poor Food Consumption Score (FCS) (Access to nutrient diet) 20% of HHs have a poor FCS in Omeo and Iwire and 35% in Agoro (Access to vegetal nutrient-rich food) 2.8 times per week legumes/nuts are consumed (Access to animal nutrient-rich food) 1.4 times per week meat/fish is consumed (Access to animal nutrient-rich food) 0.1 times per week milk is consumed

HEALTH (Mortality) 1.4 Crude Mortality Rate (CDR); 2.3 CDR for children under 5 (Maternal care) 81% of mothers giving birth in the last 3 years had visited a health facility in the first trimester of pregnancy (Infant nutrition) 88% of 0 - 5.9 month old babies are exclusively breastfed (Vaccination) 97% of under 3-year old babies were vaccinated

HYGIENE (Access to water) 16% of HHs must walk more than 30 minutes to fetch water (during rainy season) (Access to safe drinking water) 6% of HHs uses surface water (ponds) as source of drinking water (during rainy season) (Hygiene practices) 87% of HHs use soap at home (Sanitation practices) 55% of HHs uses latrines to defecate

EDUCATION (Adult literacy) 32% of HH caretakers have no experience of schooling in their lifetime; 30% are illiterate (School accessibility) 65% of HHs live less than 30-minute walk from a school; 67% of schools offer competed primary (School enrolment among children) 66% of children between 4 and 9 years of age attend/ed at any time school (School enrolment among adolescents) 73% of adolescents between 10 and 18 years of age attend/ed at any time school (School absenteeism) 43% of HHs reports that children returned home from schools in the last term due to lack of teachers (Reading skills) 53% of pupils enrolled in P4 or higher classes can read basic English sentences (Mathematical skills) 48% of pupils enrolled in P4 or higher classes can perform simple additions

PROTECTION (Disability/Vulnerability) 11% of HHs have among their members at least one disable person in need of assistance (Sexual abuses on minors) 12% of HHs report that one of their 6 to 17 years old child was sexually abused in the last year (Referral path) 91% of HHs do not report child abuse to authorities (local or judicial) (GBV) 58% of HHs reports of threats specific to women; 45% of HHs reports threat of sexual abuses (rape or sexual assault) (Mental distress) 6% of HHs reports that one of their members felt so troubled that sought help repeatedly in the last year

INTRODUCTION

ECONOMY AGRICULTURE (Proxy of intensive/extensive agriculture) 24% of HHs cultivates land located more than 30 minutes away from home (Actual capacity) 86% of HHs uses all the plots of land owned (Medium/large scale farming) 48% of HHs cultivate communal land/communal gardens in addition to private land (Smallholders) 31% of HHs cultivates less than 1 Ha of private land and is not engaged in communal farming (Expansion of cultivated land) 57% of HHs reports cultivating more land compared to the previous year (Main challenge) 86% of HHs report pest and diseases affecting agricultural activities; 71% experience rain-related challenge (Water access stability) 49% of HHs uses different water source depending on season (Water access maintenance) 43% of HHs have a closer non-functioning borehole (Farming of vegetable) 35% of HHs cultivate vegetables (60% in Owinykibul) (Crop variety) 4% of HHs cultivate only one type of crop; 9% two types of crop only (Most demanded crop/seed) 49% of HHs would like to receive greater quantity of maize seeds, 20% sorghum, 8% g-nuts (Membership in farmer groups) 14% of HHs are members of a farmer group supported by an NGO (Agronomic skills) 85% of HHs are familiar with (some) planting, farming and soil & water conservation practices (Seed selection) 60% of HHs are aware of the distinction between regular and prime seeds (Seed market) 61% of HHs purchased (some) seeds; 74% in Obbo (Agriculture tool market) 2% of HHs using only self-produced tools (Casual labour market) 38% of HHs hired casual laborers (Capital market) 17% of HHs reports being capable of borrowing a conspicuous amount of money ($200) (Market orientation of farmers) 79% of HHs used produce for consumption purposes (Market orientation of farmers) 14% of exchanged produce (sold/in-kind payments)

LIVESTOCK FARMING (Scope of livestock farming) 56% of HHs engages in animal husbandry, 8% raises cattle and 39% sheep/goats (Collective livestock farming) 56% of HHs raise livestock collectively in Kraals; no HHs in Pajok (Motives of livestock farming) 69% for HHs raise livestock for consumption; 58% marriage; 33% savings and 10% draughting (Market orientation of livestock farming) 66% of HHs report raising livestock for commercial purposes (Trend in sales of livestock) 25% of HHs report having sold more livestock compared to the previous year (Main obstacles to livestock rearing) 85% of HHs report pest and disease as main obstacle, 60% lack of veterinary services (Animal welfare) 19% of animals vaccinated while 65% of HHs report animal death

ACCESS TO CONSUMER MARKETS AND EXPENDITURES (Access to consumer market) 84% of HHs go to the market at least weekly (Obstacles to reach consumer market) 48% of HHs report distance related problems impede access to market (Obstacles to buy at market) 78% of HHs have insufficient money; 46% report inflation; 11% cannot find desired item (Barter) 31% of HHs trade goods with other community member at least monthly (Household expenditure) 27% report more than 75% of expenditure on food items (0% of HH in Omeo and Owinykibul)

PRODUCTIVE ASSETS, ENERGY and NFI (Non-basic agricultural inputs) 9% of HHs employ ox-ploughs; 53% have access to engine-run grinding machine (Access to electric power) 3% of HHs have electricity at home (Energy efficiency) 91% of HHs has and uses a stove/Kanun

HUMANITARIAN AND DEVELOPMENT AID (Scope) 120% is the simple sum of the coverage rates of all the humanitarian programs in the county (Targeting) 90% is the simple sum of the coverage of all humanitarian programs in most food insecure community, Iwire (Scope of skill development) 50% is the simple sum of coverage rates of all training programs, lowest in Iwire (33%)

INTRODUCTION

PEACE and PARTICIPATION

NATURAL RESOURCES RELATED DISPUTES (Scope of disputes) 36% of HHs are aware of disputes over land and water sources occurring in their communities (Recent disputes) On average 1.7 number of disputes occurred in the last 3 months (Main source of conflict) 26% of HHs identify access to water source as the main cause of conflicts (60% in Owinykibul) (Conflict resolution mechanism) 71% of HHs reporting disputes indicate that most if not all problems were addressed (Conflict trend perception) 16% of HHs believe that it is more likely that conflicts will increase

SAFETY AND CRIMES (Level of concern) 79% of HHs report crime against property as main problem; 39% murder; 33% physical attack (Recent trend) 97% of HHs reported that overall hazard conditions were worse one year ago compared to the latest period (Hazard Scope) 440% is the simple sum of the hazard rates in the village with most crimes, Pajok

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION (Support among people) 20% of HHs exchange gifts quite frequently (Mutual-help Associations) 84% of HHs is associated in an organization, most of them being farmer groups (Participation to community works) 50% of HHs participated in community works over the last 12 months (Contribution to community works) 33% of HHs contributes in-kind or monetarily to community activities quite frequently (Community discussion) 59% of HHs aware of public meetings that occurred over the course of the last 3 months (Most debated issues) 75% of HHs report that most debated topics during community meetings were education and water (Participation) 95% of HHs attended the community meetings (Leadership) Traditional leaders are the leading figures in the community, coordinating community works, calling for public meetings, and providing crucial advice (including to resolve disputes and provide protection to vulnerable people) (Representation) Government officials/administrative authorities are more frequently engaged in solving natural resource related disputes

MIGRATION AND IDPs (Net Inflow) Around 18,000 people have returned or moved into Magwi over the last 12 months (IDP/Returnee), the large majority in Lobone (Share of returnees) 67% of the recent returnees (last 12 months) have come from outside of the country (Cause of migration) 29% of HHs that are returning or relocating have done so to seek better economic opportunity; another 36% of HHs were avoiding direct conflict/clashes or hunger (Outflow) Approximately 8,200 people have left their households in the last 12 months (Reason for leaving) 5% of people left their household due to hunger; 30% due to lack of security (Return of refugees) 57% of the population believe half or more of those that left Magwi after the 2016 crisis, have returned

INTRODUCTION

COMMUNITY CONSOLE

By comparison, each community is assessed based on the 3 themes of the report -- people welfare (PW), economy (E), and peace & participation (PP); each theme is symbolized by a square: green suggests encouraging signs, red reasons for concern. AGORO (approximately 5% of Magwi county population) PW Worst Food Consumption Score (35% of HHs with poor FCS); most asset deprived community – 55% adopting crisis coping E strategies, 19% already exhausted strategies; high levels of crude death rate (CDR) for children <5 (5.8/ 10,000 children/day) PP Highest share of smallholder farmers; high % of HHs spending more than 75% on food; least access to productive asset Most no. of disputes over natural resources especially land; Highest % of HH members leaving – all for lack of security

OMEO (3%) PW Most limited access to social services and water; low child school enrolment; 37% of HHs report moderate hunger E Highest % of HHs cultivating only 1 or 2 crops (34%); most limited access to agricultural tools; frequent barter exchanges. PP Least no. of natural resource related disputes; relatively low level of crime; highest % of HH members that left

IWIRE (14%) PW Poorest FCS; 21% of HH adopting crisis coping strategies - 10% already exhausted strategies; limited access to social services E Greatest share of HHs that sell their produce (16%); Low capability of borrowing 200USD PP High levels of crime especially physical attack; and low participation in community work; High % of HHs hosting IDPs

PALWAR (9%) PW 96% of HHs do not adopt coping strategy; highest CDR; highest % of HH caretakers with no experience of schooling (40%) E HHs that most employ labour; highest % of HHs spending more than 75% on food (43%) PP High incidence of natural resource conflict; Poorest conflict resolution mechanisms; All HHs are in an association

LOBONE (23%) PW Among the most varied diets; fairly good access to social services E High use of productive farming practices and ox-ploughs; Greatest share of HHs that rear animals for commercial purposes PP Considerable no. of dispute over land; Good level of participation in community work; Greatest % and no. of IDPs/returnees

PAJOK (10%) PW High CDR and highest CDR <5yrs (6.0); most no. of HHs using river as drinking source (89%) E Highest % of monocrop farmers; least access to market; least engaged in livestock farming PP Highest incidence of crime – especially murder; Lowest group association; Least no. of HH members in public bodies

OBBO (12%) PW Most varied diet; fair access to social services – especially education and highest level of adolescent enrolment rate (96%) E Highest % of HHs with access to productive assets; Least capable of borrowing 200 USD PP Relatively low levels of crime and dispute over natural resources; high levels of association; low level of outflow of people

OWINYKIBUL (5%) PW Poorest education infrastructure and enrolment; most food secure; lowest threat to women; low morbidity in babies < 3yrs E Least no. of smallholder farmers; Highest % of HHs cultivating common land; Most variety of crop; HHs most capable of PP borrowing 200USD; Community most engaged in animal rearing; and yet worst access to market Highest levels of dispute over natural resources; Least level of crime; highest participation in community work;

MAGWI CENTRE (19%) PW Best food security and best access to public services; high CDR <5yrs E Greatest share of farmers with ability to sell produce in further away markets; PP Best conflict resolution mechanisms; average level of crime; High no. of HHs in association

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY and SCOPE

This introduction provides a description of the rationale, objective and scope of the multisector household survey conducted by AVSI Foundation between 9th and 15th February 2020 in Magwi, Eastern Equatoria State. This is a companion of another survey conducted in the same period in Torit county, accessible here:

Subject/Objectives Meant to influence AVSI’s programming and project implementation, the objectives of the multi-sector household survey are multi-fold. In order to promote a holistic and change-oriented understanding of the area, a comprehensive dashboard is presented, covering sectorial key indicators (outcome) and their main determinants (contributing factors), with brief references to outlier communities and/or noticeable changes occurred in the recent past. The identification of the most tailored interventions is stimulated through a short review of the major differences among the communities, including both their comparative constraints and advantages. Better targeting and project integration, the central objectives that this study aims at fostering, are encouraged with an in-depth analysis that: i) brings together socio-economic and power/conflict features; ii) reviews the scope and characteristics of the major actors (administrative authorities, community leaders, market participants and food surplus producers); iii) presents a poverty profiling of the population based on food security; iv) remembers cross- sectorial dynamics whenever relevant. Finally, recommendations are accompanied with a description of their logic and implications for project implementation as a means to guide AVSI field officers. The main results of the survey were validated with local authorities representing all the 9 targeted communities. The result of this meeting are the notes and comments included in the report in relation to the most significant and surprising results of the survey. Such validation meeting is evidence of the fact-based discussion with local communities that AVSI undertakes to bring about relevant and tailored interventions.

Background and rationale AVSI Foundation has had a continuous presence in Eastern Equatoria for over ten years, implementing mainly education and protection projects. While its action has often included some components of food security and livelihood support, AVSI has expanded its intervention in such field in the last years. Part of such experience is AVSI’s expertise in conducting ad-hoc multi-sector household surveys aimed at assessing not only the size and profile of the population in need, but also the context-specific causes of such needs.2 This report intends to make such knowledge available to the community and stakeholders of Magwi.

Questionnaire The questionnaire employed in this survey was developed based on the WFP/FAO-led Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring System (FSNMS) survey3 and the UNICEF MICS (Multi Indicator Cluster Survey) survey4, with additional questions originating from the Consortium for Improving Agriculture-based Livelihoods in Central Africa (CIALCA) Baseline Survey5, the Secure Livelihood Research Consortium (SLRC) Survey6, the RGAP Smallholder Household Survey7, and a study on natural resource management compiled by the Association on Strengthening Agricultural

2 AVSI multisector assessments: https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/south-sudan/assessments/organizations/avsi- foundation 3 Food Security Cluster homepage. http://fscluster.org/south-sudan-rep/documents 4 MICS homepage. http://mics.unicef.org/ 5 Questionnaire applied in Congo, Burundi and Rwanda. http://www.cialca.org 6 Questionnaire applied in Congo. http://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/catalog/6039 7 Questionnaire applied in Uganda. http://www.cgap.org/publications/national-survey-and-segmentation-smallholder-households- uganda

INTRODUCTION

Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA)8. Each one of those surveys has been applied in numerous countries in the region, was crafted by internationally renowned institutions, and reflect a different focus, respectively: intake of food and nutrition, agropastoral development, livelihood opportunities in post-conflict areas, SME development and capitalization, patterns of change toward an African green revolution, and the relation between social capital and Natural Resource Management. Each one of these aspects is needed to be reviewed to gain a more structural/operational understanding of Magwi.

Sampling The sampling strategy followed the standard two-stage cluster sampling, the first stage guiding the selection of villages and the second one that of the households to be surveyed. The first stage was conducted reflecting the different size of villages (probability proportional to population -- PPS). Additionally, stratification was introduced to ensure that random selection provide accounts for villages in central and peripheral areas alike (within a given boma). In absence of updated official demographic data for villages, a list of all villages, with their respective population size and the indication of their accessibility (lowlands versus highlands), was obtained from the Magwi’s Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The survey was conducted over the course of 6 and half days by 4 teams, each one visiting two different villages per day; thus, the total number of villages surveyed (clusters) was 26. This fairly high number of clusters was adopted to compensate for potential inaccuracies in the population estimates.

The second stage, which aimed at selecting households to be surveyed, was conducted following the “improved random-walk” method. This technique consists of selecting those households living along a randomly selected direction within a given village; it is qualified as “improved” for representation of the different sections of villages is ensured by sending enumerators in opposite/ different directions, and by skipping a predefined number of households, depending on village size. The survey respondents were family caregivers. Household members were defined as the group of people sharing food from the same cooking pot. In total, 257 households were surveyed, well above the number of HH commonly surveyed by similar food security studies (the standard county sample size for the biannual WFP/FAO/UNICEF-led FSNMS study is between 90 and 120 households), and sufficient to provide statistically significant references for the 9 communities/payams of Magwi county.

Limitations The most patent limitation of this study originates from the selection of households through the “improved random-walk” method, which is considered a sub-optimal technique in comparison to the simple random selection based on the listing of every household (in randomly selected villages). However, without official and updated demographic data at the village level, the listing process is subjects to others, at times more severe, limitations, as the entire process is vulnerable to local authorities’ agency.

At the risk of incurring an even stronger fault, non-professional interviewers were recruited as enumerators. In particular, head teachers from primary schools located in the area under investigation were invited to participate to the survey during the school break period. This was done partly to shore up teachers’ very precarious income and improve their understanding of the local context. However, the main objective was to minimize the interviewers-interviewed language obstacles, a problem that is particularly acute when surveying a population speaking multiple languages, with their local variations, occasionally with limited capacity to articulate clear and detailed answers. Two full days of training, including practical trials, was provided to enumerators.

8 ASARECA (2004) The Role of Social Capital and Local Policies in the Highlands of South-western Uganda. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08cc740f0b64974001434/R7856AnnB.pdf

INTRODUCTION

Conscious of the several limitations that affect the precision of the data collected, this study focuses on a comparative reading of the estimates for the different communities, supported by the triangulation of several indicators, rather than the analysis of absolute values per se; coherently, no inference analysis is presented. This in line with the objective of this investigation, which is first and foremost aimed at typifying communities in an attempt to guide project customization. Finally, it should be remembered that when studying communities whose activities are strongly influenced by seasons, the result of surveys must be interpreted cautiously, acknowledging that they describe a season-specific situation. The qualitative comments included in the report aim at partly addressing this limitation.

Note on charts and data reading In reading the data and charts presented throughout the document, it is important to keep in mind a few notions. Firstly, data reflect the different kind of questions asked through the questionnaire. In particular, while some questions allowed the respondent to provide multiple answers, other questions asked the respondent to select only one answer. As a consequence, in reporting the percentage of HHs or individuals who provided a given answer, the addition of such responses equal 100% in the case of questions allowing only one valid repose. For questions that allowed multiple answers, on the contrary, charts report figures which surpass the 100% threshold; in particular, questions which allowed to indicate up to 2 different answers, may reach up to 200%, questions which allowed for 3 different answers 300%, and so on. Secondly, it must be highlighted that certain data regarding one community may reflect matters occurring in other areas. This is due to the fact that residents who live in one community may come from other communities, where they still have some of their properties. Finally, it should be remembered once again that the estimations at the level of individual communities are based on only 30 responses on average, and should therefore be treated as preliminary reference. We refrain from drawing conclusion based on such individual estimations and focus rather on the joint analysis and triangulation of several complementary estimations as a means to gain “robust” approximative descriptions; the report should be read accordingly with such spirit.

Magwi Magwi (green in map) is situated in Eastern Equatoria State in South Sudan. The county shares a border with State, Torit county (also in Eastern Equatoria) and an international border with Uganda.

No. of Payams9 Population11 HHs10 Agoro 944 5,664 Omeo 556 3,336 Iwire 2,370 14,220 Palwar 1,496 8,976 Lobone 3,948 23,688 Pajok 1,789 10,734 Obbo 2,016 12,096 Owinykibul 929 5,574 Magwi Centre 3,200 19,200 Total Magwi 17,248 103,488

9 Disclaimer: Former state, county and payam names and boundaries do not imply acceptance or recognition by the Government of South Sudan and/or its partners. They are shown on the map only for humanitarian purposes. 10 Source Magwi RRC (Jan 2020). 11 Based on an average of 6 people living within each household.

INTRODUCTION

Although the county receives rainfall throughout the year, agricultural seasons differs from payam to payam. The hillier regions of Lobone and Obbo tend to have two agricultural seasons due to two separate periods of rain. The number of households in Magwi is around 17,300 families, the most inhabited of the 9 payams being Magwi Centre. The population data AVSI used for this report were provided by Magwi’s RRC.

Indicative map of Magwi county’s main communities*

Note: *the size of the areas does not represent administrative boundaries but provides a reference of the villages covered by the different payams. Their size is not proportional or an indication of the inhabiting population.

INTRODUCTION

PEOPLE WELFARE

This first section of the report highlights people’s welfare, more emphatically life and death in Magwi county. It will be reviewed, respectively: livelihood and resilience/coping capacity (chapter 1 and 2), food security (chapter 3), health and hygiene (chapter 4 and 5), and education and protection (Chapter 6 and 7).

1. LIVELIHOOD Magwi hosts a population reliant on the exploitation of natural resources for its survival. Livelihood activities related to agriculture (including production of basic staple crops, cash crops and casual labour) remains the main source of income throughout the county especially in Owinykibul. In comparison to neighbouring Torit county12, no HHs in Magwi report animal husbandry as a main source of living13. In Iwire and Agoro, the sale of firewood and production of charcoal is also an important occupation while the sale of alcoholic beverages is of significance in Magwi Centre, Owinykibul and Obbo.

Magwi 9 Main sources of living Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Production of basic/staple 76% 79% 79% 74% 78% 83% 73% 80% 75% 78% crops (sorghum, maize, etc) Sale of firewood or charcoal 14% 0% 17% 6% 4% 0% 5% 0% 3% 6% Casual labour related to 0% 0% 0% 10% 8% 0% 14% 10% 6% 5% agricultural activities Sale of alcoholic beverages 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 9% 10% 14% 4% Casual labour related to non agriculture activities (for 10% 11% 3% 0% 2% 8% 0% 0% 0% 4% example construction) Production of cash crops or other products (vegetables, 0% 5% 0% 3% 2% 3% 0% 0% 3% 2% groundnuts, etc) Sale of fish 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Again, in comparison to Torit county, communities in Magwi produce less for self-consumption. Almost 20% sell their produce for cash while another 20% of HHs exchange their produce. It is important to highlight that exchange in these communities is another form of ‘market’ that does not use the exchange of currency (see chapter 10). For this reason, the results indicate a more stable and sale-oriented farming community.

Gains from the source of living Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY (% of HHs) Centre Self-consumption 57% 68% 66% 73% 61% 68% 57% 70% 56% 63% Exchanges with other products 29% 16% 21% 17% 20% 16% 22% 10% 24% 20%

Cash 14% 16% 14% 10% 18% 16% 22% 20% 21% 17%

12 AVSI 2019 Torit Multi-Sector Household survey. https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/south- sudan/assessment/avsi-2019-torit-multi-sector-household-survey 13 It should be noted that livestock and its sale tends to be underreported as many locals identify their source of livelihood with the source of food consumed, which is farming - a “misunderstanding” that reveals how foreign is the notion of income to the locals

WELFARE 14

The use of the cash shows that at least 2/3 of families who receive cash from their main source of livelihood are able to use it for non-basic items, an encouraging figure that once again demonstrates less subsistence farming as compared to Torit. However, it must not be overlooked that still one third of the population cannot afford anything beyond immediate goods.

Magwi Use of cash (% of HHs) Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre To buy food and other basic 0% 17% 23% 39% 32% 15% 56% 40% 20% 28% items (for instance soap) To buy basic things as well other things for family members 33% 50% 54% 50% 55% 70% 22% 60% 60% 54% (grinding of grains, school fees) To buy things for the family as well as instruments for your livelihood activity 67% 33% 23% 11% 14% 15% 22% 0% 20% 18%

Moreover, as expected, there are gender differentiation in livelihood activities whereby the production of alcohol and family duties are largely a female occupation while animal keeping, cultivation in groups and casual labour is mostly conducted by men. These findings are in line with those of Torit, suggesting similar cultural norms in Eastern Equatoria.

Main Occupation for Adults 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Caring family members/Family duties Cultivation individually Hunting, Fishing or Gathering of natural products Livestock rearing or defense Production of local alcohol Casual Labour (work for different people in different days) Cultivation in group or in association with other farmers Producing or selling firewood/charcoal/bamboo Petty trading (tea seller, kiosk, sales of handicraft) or small… Gathering or selling of items for construction (stone, poles, etc) House boy/House girl

Adult Males Adult Females

The main economic occupations for adolescents are family duties, followed by cultivation - another sign that agricultural activities are the most important livelihood means in Magwi. The share of adolescent engaged in agriculture however is concerning considering its potential incompatibility with schooling (see chapter 6).

WELFARE 15

Caring family members/Family duties Main Occupation for Adolescents Cultivation

Gathering or selling of stone/cutting grass/poles and wood 14% 8% Hunting, Fishing or Gathering vegetables/fruits/etc

Producing or selling firewood/charcoal/bamboo 51% 44% 32% 29% 28% 28% Production of local alcohol

Petty trading (tea seller, kiosk, sales of handicraft) or other small 12% business (tailor, etc.) 5% House boy/House girl

Livestock rearing or defense 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Casual Labour (help different people in different days)

Children between 6 and 11 years are mainly occupied with household keeping and caring for other family members. Worryingly, 47% of children aged are reportedly spending most of the day performing their duties (data not shown), leaving little time to attend school.

Main Occupation for Children Getting water for the house Washing dishes/cleaning the house/washing clothes 7% Caring for younger children 1 57% 56% 53% 33% 20% Cooking or preparing ingredients (grinding ingredients) Caring for elderly/sick 17% They do not contribute Control the fields against birds 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Overall, 35% of HHs report an improvement in their livelihood over the last year. The 14% of the population reporting worsening conditions report a loss of crops followed (and possibly related to) a spike in food prices. In Owinykibul and Pajok, the two payams where one fifth or more HHs report a worsening in livelihoods, the main reasons differ. Whereas in Owinykibul the lead problem is loss of crop, in Pajok, insecurity is the main problem, which is consistent with findings in chapter 14.

Changes in livelihood level over last Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY year and causes of worsening Centre Yes, it has IMPROVED 48% 42% 33% 45% 37% 32% 22% 30% 23% 35%

it stayed THE SAME 33% 42% 50% 52% 55% 43% 61% 40% 69% 51%

No, it has WORSENED 19% 16% 17% 3% 8% 24% 17% 30% 9% 14%

Loss of crops/harvest 50% 100% 60% 100% 50% 11% 50% 67% 33% 47%

Due to inflation/high prices 25% 0% 40% 0% 25% 0% 25% 0% 67% 19%

Insecurity 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 11% Loss of employment and income 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 11% 0% 0% 0% 6% sources

WELFARE 16

2. MAIN PROBLEMS and RESILIENCE (COPING CAPACITY)

The main issue and by far the most considerable matter that households in Magwi county would like to see addressed is education. Agriculture, health and water supply are the next and equally most pressing concerns, consistent most discussed topic in community meetings (see chapter 15). It is worth noting, however, that communities seem to have different priorities. In all payams but one, education is the first demand. This is unsurprising given its importance to livelihood and numerous challenges and barriers HHs are facing in schooling their children particularly in Owinykibul (see chapter 6). However, in Omeo, the need for improved management of water is a priority, understandable given it is the payam where the population have to walk further. Among the top priorities at payam level are: health in Agoro and Magwi Centre, security in Pajok and Iwire, agriculture in Palwar, and water supply in Owinykibul. Hunger is also a great concern for those in Iwire, not surprising as it is the most food insecure community (chapter 3). Interestingly, in Pajok, communities also call for greater assistance to returnees; indeed, the community with the most reported tensions between IDP and host community due to the limited or discriminatory access to humanitarian assistance (chapter 14).

Magwi % of HHs by support most demanded Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Education 35% 29% 28% 23% 54% 33% 30% 40% 38% 36% Agriculture 15% 18% 8% 27% 15% 13% 20% 0% 12% 15% Health 20% 6% 20% 19% 3% 13% 10% 20% 19% 14% Water supply 5% 35% 8% 19% 10% 0% 10% 30% 15% 13% Security 10% 6% 20% 4% 3% 23% 10% 0% 12% 10% Food/Hunger 5% 6% 12% 4% 5% 3% 0% 0% 4% 5% Roads 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 10% 10% 0% 2% Peace and reconciliation 0% 0% 0% 4% 3% 3% 10% 0% 0% 2% Returnee assistance 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 2% Market 5% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Electricity 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

It is worth noting that the requests coming from the population are aligned with the level of coverage of services (or the lack of them). 1/3 of HHs in Magwi live more than 30 minutes away from a school. Generally, those payams that are further away from schools (Owinykibul and Lobone) tend to demand more education. Similar patterns are found in terms of access and demand of health facilities with an obstetrician where Agoro, Palwar and Owinykibul, those payams that need to travel further to reach a health facility with pre-natal care, have a higher percentage of HHs demanding greater support in healthcare. In Omeo too, where the greatest number of HHs must walk more than 30 minutes to reach a water source, improved water management is their top priority.

Access to services Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY (<30 mins away by foot - one way) Centre

School 57% 42% 52% 61% 57% 81% 83% 33% 89% 65% Health facility with 'qualified' 0% 11% 40% 0% 29% 40% 29% 0% 33% 24% obstetrician Water source 90% 68% 87% 74% 76% 89% 87% 100% 94% 84% Market 0% 5% 20% 29% 49% 32% 30% 10% 42% 29%

Among the main problems faced by families in the last 3 months, human sickness, unaffordable food and insecurity are the most common. Human sickness was a greater problem faced in Agoro compared to other payams, perhaps

WELFARE 17

another reason for a high demand in healthcare services. High food prices effect Obbo the most, while violence is significant in all payams particularly in Pajok which is consistent with the reporting of high levels of crime (chapter 14).

Main problems faced in the last three months

COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% Human sickness Food too expensive/high food prices Floods Livestock diseases Weeds/pest Insecurity/violence Death of Livestock Other Loss of income / employment Death of household member Delay of rains/ late start / dry spell Looting / theft/ loss of assets Returnees/IDPs living with household Social Event (Ceremonies, weddings, funerals) Lack of free access/movement Cattle Raid

Interestingly, although HHs in Magwi report a more stable livelihood compared to Torit County, the numbers of HHs adopting coping strategies are almost identical. Although the situation is not one of crisis, it is still concerning to see that 5 payams out of 9 have one-fifth of the population or more adopting crisis coping strategies. Of most concern is Agoro, where half the population have adopted crisis coping strategies and another fifth have already exhausted coping strategies, a sign of prolonged vulnerability perhaps as the result of being one of the hardest hit areas during the crisis. In comparison, in Palwar, almost no HH has had to adopt any type of coping strategy. The situation in Owinykibul is similar.

% of HHs by livelihood coping strategy Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY adopted (and exhausted) Centre No need to adopt coping strategy 45% 88% 75% 96% 75% 74% 86% 89% 80% 78% Adopted Stress coping strategies 0% 0% 4% 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3% Adopted Crisis coping strategies 55% 12% 21% 4% 19% 21% 14% 11% 20% 20% Had already exhausted crisis coping 19% 5% 10% 0% 10% 8% 4% 0% 6% 7% strategies

By looking individually at the different coping strategies, worryingly, withdrawing children from school is the most commonly adopted crisis coping strategy.

WELFARE 18

HHs engaging in coping strategies STRESS Went to friends to eat COUNTY Magwi Centre STRESS Sold Household assets Owinykibul STRESS Borrowed money for food Obbo Pajok STRESS Spent savings or sold more animals Lobone CRISIS Sold productive assets Palwar Iwire CRISIS Reduced essential non-food items Omeo Agoro CRISIS Consumed seeds held for cultivation CRISIS Withdrew children from school 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

As demonstrated above, Agoro is the most asset deprived and livelihood vulnerable payam in Magwi with the majority of HHs in Agoro who have already exhausted their coping strategies reporting to have mostly consumed seeds that were stored for cultivation. For all HHs that exhausted their coping strategies, the majority sold household assets.

HHs who have already exhausted their coping strategies STRESS ALREADY went to friends to eat COUNTY Magwi… STRESS ALREADY Sold Household assets Owinykibul STRESS ALREADY borrowed money for food Obbo Pajok STRESS ALREADY Sent savings or sold more animals Lobone CRISIS ALREADY Sold productive assets Palwar Iwire CRISIS ALREADY Reduced essential non-food items Omeo CRISIS ALREADY consumed seeds held for Agoro cultivation CRISIS ALREADY withdrew children from school 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%

WELFARE 19

3. FOOD SECURITY

Based on the data collected, at the end of January 2020, the overall food security condition of Magwi’s families classified as one of a mild crisis (IPC phase 3). In the county, 12% of HHs have a poor FCS and 28% show borderline conditions. Additionally, 18% suffer from moderate hunger. There are important differences between communities. In Agoro, over one-third of the population has a poor FCS, followed by Iwire and Omeo with both around 20%. However, in Magwi Centre only 3% of HHs score a poor FCS, perhaps as a result of more livelihood opportunity the urban town can offer. However, these positive signs should be viewed with caution as 28% of HHs are classified as borderline, indicating a great fragility. Additionally, it is important note that there are great levels of food inequality (captured by the standard deviation of the FCS) in Magwi county, especially in Agoro and Owinykibul. Although these indicators together show better conditions for Magwi in comparison to neighbouring Torit, they still describe a situation of vulnerable food security conditions: despite the recent reasonable harvest, still 40% of the population does not have access to an acceptable varied and nutritious diet, and one out of ten families still needs significant support.

Magwi % of HHs by Food Consumption Score Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre acceptable 50% 53% 50% 68% 60% 63% 70% 60% 61% 60% borderline 15% 26% 30% 26% 32% 26% 22% 30% 36% 28%

poor 35% 21% 20% 6% 8% 11% 9% 10% 3% 12%

Mean of FCS 34.0 34.2 32.9 37.3 38.9 35.6 38.4 41.2 38.4 36.8

Standard Dev 18.5 9.3 11.7 8.3 12.5 14.4 12.3 17.1 11.2 12.7

Household Hunger Scale (HHS) follows quite closely the results of FCS. Once again it is Agoro and Omeo that have the greatest number of households with an HHS of moderate or severe hunger whereas in Magwi Centre and Owinykibul, 90% of HHs do not report hunger at all. The latter payam is also the one with the greatest number of meals for adults and children under the age of 5.

Magwi % of HHs by Food Access Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre # of meals - Adults 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.2 number of meals – U5 Children (not 2.3 2.7 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.4 3.1 2.4 2.5 breastfeeding)

HHS- Little to no hunger 62% 63% 77% 90% 86% 81% 74% 90% 92% 81%

HHS- Moderate hunger 33% 37% 23% 10% 12% 19% 26% 10% 8% 18%

HHS - Severe hunger 5% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

When looking at the food items consumed, nutrient rich food is consumed sporadically: meat and fish – 1.4 times a week, legumes – 2.8 times a week and milk – 0.1 times a week. As Magwi County relies more on agriculture than livestock for its livelihood, it is not surprising that milk is much less consumed in Magwi than in Torit County. On the whole, agricultural production is stronger in Magwi than in Torit, perhaps legumes are consumed more frequently in Magwi than in Torit due to this. Eggs are very rarely eaten in Magwi county. Agoro consumes almost zero fruits, eggs are also completely absent from any HHs weekly consumption which is also the case in Iwire.

WELFARE 20

Orange vegetables are consumed at least twice a week in Owinykibul whereas in Palwar they are only consumed 0.8 times per week.

Frequency of times consumed in a week by food item (7=every day) COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Cereals, grains, roots and tubers Greens vegetables Oil / fat / butter Condiments/spices Sugar or sweet Meat and fish Legumes/nuts (beans, cowpeas, peanuts, lentils, nut) Milk and other diary product Orange vegetables Fruits Orange fruits Eggs

Apart from meat and oil, 50% or more of households rely on their own production as the source for all food items, confirming a better harvest and less reliance on purchased food. However, it is key to notice the role of markets, especially in relation to the food items that are mostly traded, namely protein-rich products (oil/fat/butter, eggs and meat).

Source of food by item 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 14% Cereals 24% Green vegetables 9% Orange fruits 91% Oil / fat / butter 26% Legumes / nuts 57% Milk 29% Fruits 23% Orange vegetables 75% Meat, fish 48% Eggs

Bartering Borrowing/debts Exchange of labor for food Food assistance Gathering/Hunting/Fishing Gifts from neighbors/relatives Market/shop purchase (Cash and credit) Own production (crops and animals)

As these items are consumed less often than staple food, it could be thought that markets have a minor role in relation to food security; however, that is not the case given the nutrition content of such food commodities. Indeed, the fact that a significant share of such food is distributed through the market indicates that improving food security in Magwi requires a close attention and improvement of both the production (farming) and commercialization (marketing) of pulses and livestock with the objective of lowering costs of production and prices

WELFARE 21

on the market; in turn, this requires supporting market- oriented producers (without failing to help vulnerable % of HHs with "poor" FCS by key groups County Average for the total population of Torit 12% farmers), following a value-chain approach that looks at both actors and infrastructures. Without cattle 18% Smallholders (farming only private land 17% <1Ha) With small private land (<1Ha) regardless of 16% access to common land Given the key role that food security plays in defining the Cultivating land in common for self- 12% well-being of people, it is particularly useful to review the consumption Agricultural inputs bought with cash 0%

food security conditions for specific socio-economic groups provided by livelihood activity of the population. This profiling exercise helps distinguish the Employing ox-plough 0% most well-off groups from the most vulnerable, an Employing advanced tools 6% information that is useful not only to improve the targeting Employing seeds of prime quality 7% Member of a farmer group supported by an of humanitarian projects but also to shed light on crucial EXPECTED 8% NGO context-specific dynamics at play in this area and thus Member of informal farmer group 12% Not associated in any income generating improve the targeting of development-oriented initiatives. 17% As expected, one can observe that the families of farmers group Hosting orphans 18% with access to ox-ploughs or investing in agricultural inputs Consuming what obtained with main 15% are not at all in a condition of poor FCS, whereas farmers not livelihood activity Not applying agricultural practices (in some applying/familiar with any agricultural best practice, or 11% cultivating less than 1 ha are much more likely to register a of the 3 domains) With elderly 0% poor FCS. IDP/Returnees 1% However, when it comes to food marketing, and more in Family members with disabilities 7%

general market dynamics, one finds somehow unexpected Widow or woman with no support 9% results. The group more well off is that engaging in bartering, Cultivating only one crop 10% and not those obtaining cash in return for their livelihood Cultivating land in common 11% activity (this is consistent with the fact that 82% of those Member of a seed multiplication group 20% receiving mostly cash in return for their work can afford only Bartered what obtained with main SURPRISING 4% basic goods -- see also Chapter 1). Moreover, the fact that livelihood activity farmers hiring casual workers or cultivating land with the Cash obtained with main livelihood activity 12% help of a numerous number of family members does not Employing casual labour 17% seem to make them better off suggests dynamics at play that More than 4 family member cultivating 13% do not allow people to exploit as expected economies of scale. Overall, these findings are consistent with an economy that is still largely a subsistence economy.

In the social field, it should be noted that almost all families with elderly and IDPs/Returnees do not show poor FCS at all. This could suggest that “informal” social safety nets, i.e. mutual support among the members of the enlarged families and of the community, is strong, something that is further confirmed by the fact that farmers give away for free as much as 7% of their produce (as a comparison, 14% is what they sell on average, see chapter 8). Further investigation is certainly needed to corroborate such findings.

WELFARE 22

4. HEALTH

Magwi’s crude death rate (CDR) stands at 1.4, better in comparison to Torit. However, the CDR for children under the age of 5 years is disturbingly high, where almost 6 children died per day in the recall period of 90 days in Agoro and Pajok, they are closely followed by Magwi Centre and then Iwire. With the exception of Magwi Centre, these payams also have the worst FCS (see chapter 3). The review of the rate of died sons/daughters per household suggests some differences among communities, which may reflect some longer-term conflict dynamics; Pajok, for instance, was one of the area most severely affected by insecurity, at least in the years of 2016 and 2017.

Magwi Mortality Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre CDR (deaths/10,000 0.7 0.8 0.5 3.8 0.6 3.5 1.2 1.3 0.4 1.4 people/day) CDR of children < 5 5.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.3 (deaths/10,000 people/day) % of sons and daughters who 2% 6% 9% 14% 9% 13% 7% 5% 10% 9% died per household lifetime

Looking now at maternal and pre-natal health, the majority of women have a fair access, although this number drops when considering pre-natal care within the first trimester. There are discrepancies between communities. In Agoro, only half of pregnant women accessed pre-natal care and were assisted by a doctor during delivery. The latter is also true for Owinykibul. In fact for both of these communities, more than 75% report that a natal care services with a ‘qualified’ doctor is more than a 1 hour walk away.

Pre and Post Natal care (based Magwi on mothers of U3 years Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre children) % who visited any doctor 75% 100% 100% 100% 93% 90% 100% 100% 100% 96% before delivery % who was visited in a health 50% 100% 100% 100% 93% 90% 86% 100% 100% 94% facility % who was visited in a health facility in the first trimester of 50% 78% 78% 90% 86% 70% 86% 75% 92% 81% pregnancy

% assisted by qualified health 50% 67% 60% 90% 71% 56% 57% 50% 92% 70% workers during delivery

> more than 1 hour to closest health clinic with qualified 75% 67% 40% 50% 21% 30% 43% 100% 8% 39% obstetrician

When asked why antenatal care was not sought earlier, 30% of women say that no doctor was available (data not shown).

WELFARE 23

Infant and Young Child Feeding Incidence N Early initiation of breastfeeding is common practice for all Early initiation of breastfeeding (0-23.9 mothers. It is also reassuring that 88% of women exclusively 95% 57 months) breastfeed which is above the 80% alarm threshold indicated by Early initiation of breastfeeding (0-23.9 WHO. However, only 32% of mothers are introducing solid months) among women who delivered in 95% 39 foods at the right age. Additionally, 28% of babies between the health centers age of 12-15 months are still only breastfed (sometimes Exclusive breastfeeding (0-5.9 months) 88% 8 exclusively, other times given water too) which can be the Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft 32% 22 driving cause of malnutrition. Overall, women in Magwi are foods (6-8.9 months) more attuned to the correct feeding practices than their Continued complimentary breastfeeding 71% 14 counterparts in Torit. between 12-15 months

Also reassuringly, most children in Magwi County receive some kind of vaccination with the exception of those in Palwar community. However, only half receive measles vaccination in Palwar and Owinykibul and even less in the same payams are vaccinated against pneumonia.

Magwi Vaccinations (U3 babies) Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre % with birth registration 75% 78% 100% 70% 86% 70% 86% 75% 92% 83% % with any vaccination 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% % with BCG vaccination for 100% 89% 90% 80% 93% 70% 86% 100% 100% 89% tuberculosis % with tetanus vaccination 100% 89% 90% 78% 93% 100% 86% 100% 100% 92% % vaccinated against measles 75% 56% 89% 50% 86% 100% 71% 50% 92% 77% % vaccinated against 50% 44% 60% 40% 57% 60% 57% 33% 67% 54% pneumonia

When looking at morbidity figures, it is important to keep in mind that they result from self-assessment on the part of the parents interviewed, and may largely reflect their particular perception. The figures suggest that malaria and fever are very frequent, and represent the main form of illness for young children below 3 years of age. Apparently, medical advice is sought frequently and almost always from a health clinic.

Magwi Morbidity (U3 years babies) Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre

Illness in the last 2 weeks 50% 29% 43% 43% 39% 32% 33% 27% 21% 34% Diarrhea 33% 60% 17% 33% 22% 33% 0% 33% 80% 33% Fever/Malaria 100% 40% 83% 67% 56% 50% 40% 67% 100% 65%

Other 0% 20% 17% 0% 0% 33% 20% 0% 0% 10% % who sought medical advice 100% 88% 100% 100% 100% 100% 71% 80% 80% 90% % who visited PHC 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97%

WELFARE 24

However, even though the vast majority report having sought treatment from a clinic, a staggering 82% of the local population is not aware that children affected by diarrhea must drink more liquids indicating a need for strong sensitization on key health messages. How much was the baby given to How much was the baby given to eat drink during diarrhea? during diarrhea? 6% 18% 6%

12% 25% 65% 63% 6% Much less than usual Somehow less Much less than usual Somehow less About the same More About the same More

In the last 6 months, around 70% of children under the age of 3 have received treatment for vitamin deficiency or worms. Worms are affecting more children in Magwi Centre, Agoro and Palwar and Vitamin A deficiency is a problem in Iwire, Lobone and Magwi Centre. The payams mentioned here are also those with the greatest CDR for under 5 and once again draws attention to need to greater awareness on hygiene habits.

Treatment in the last 6 months Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY (U3 years babies) Centre % who received a capsule of 75% 63% 90% 70% 85% 60% 71% 67% 83% 75% vitamin A % who received any de- 75% 63% 60% 70% 64% 60% 57% 50% 90% 66% worming treatment

Lastly, 86% of households use mosquito nets, although it is not clear if there is a sufficient quantity for all. Moreover, in 29% of households, cooking takes place in the same room as they sleep (especially in the rainy season) which can have numerous health implications.

WELFARE 25

5. HYGIENE

Constrained access to safe water, although hardly the only factor, may very well help to explain some of the bad health and mortality outcomes affecting Magwi County. It is important to emphasize this linkage as it is too often the case that water interventions are framed merely in term of their contribution to livelihood conditions. On average a HH consumes 5 jerrycans of water a day. For 16% of Magwi’s population reaching a water sources takes more than 30 minutes by foot. In Omeo this proportion is doubled (and perhaps one of the reasons for greater demand of water supply in chapter 2). 11% of the population spend another 30 minutes or more queuing for water, once again a proportion that is doubled in Omeo. In Pajok and Palwar, the majority of the population use water from rivers, which is far from being clean and safe, especially at the beginning of rainy season. In Owinykibul there is also a worrisome share of the population who drinks surface water. Finally, almost 1/4 HHs report that children under the age of 15 years are often responsible for collecting water. These numbers confirm the concern mentioned in chapter 2, that children are reportedly spending most of the day performing house duties leaving little time to attend school. Child safety is also potentially at risk during these activities (see chapter 7).

Magwi Water access and source Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Average no. of jerrycans 4 6 7 4 5 5 6 5 6 5 consumed per day Young person (<15) responsible 19% 28% 30% 29% 16% 19% 22% 10% 26% 23% for collecting water % who walks more than 30 10% 32% 13% 26% 24% 11% 13% 0% 6% 16% minutes to access water % who spend more than 30 19% 32% 20% 6% 2% 8% 9% 0% 11% 11% minutes in queue % who uses surface water (pond) as source of drinking 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 10% 6% 2% water % who uses a river as source of 0% 26% 3% 61% 20% 89% 9% 10% 3% 28% drinking water % who faces changing water 52% 44% 38% 45% 51% 46% 55% 67% 53% 49% source depending on season

40% of the population have received hygiene training. It is important however to note that behavioural changes are much more difficult to witness. At the county level, those who receive training tend to have very slightly better hygiene practices which is not always the case at payam level. Ironically, for example, in Obbo those who received training are found to wash their hands or use soap less frequently than the general average. Once again, we are reminded of the interconnections among sectors, and the need to design holistic interventions.

Magwi Hygiene practices Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre % who was trained on Hygiene 45% 21% 31% 26% 36% 41% 64% 20% 60% 40% and Cholera prevention

% sweep their compound daily 85% 89% 100% 100% 98% 97% 95% 100% 100% 97% - among those who received 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 97% Hygiene trainings

% who uses soap 81% 68% 83% 90% 92% 92% 87% 78% 94% 87%

WELFARE 26

- among those who received 89% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 86% 100% 95% 95% Hygiene trainings % of people who washes their 81% 84% 76% 84% 96% 86% 100% 90% 97% 89% hands regularly - among those who received 89% 100% 88% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 95% 96% Hygiene trainings % who wash their hands at 81% 100% 90% 90% 98% 89% 96% 100% 97% 93% least twice - among those who received 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 93% 100% 100% 98% Hygiene trainings

% who use toilets 29% 32% 53% 48% 64% 62% 57% 40% 75% 55% - among those who received 22% 75% 78% 88% 89% 79% 71% 100% 76% 75% Hygiene trainings

WELFARE 27

6. EDUCATION

The educational profile of the survey respondents, 83% of whom are of an age between 18 and 50 years, act as a reference to interpret the educational outcomes of Magwi’s youth. It shows that around 32% of household caretakers have no experience of schooling at all in their lifetime. There is also an evident divide that distinguishes the population of Magwi Town from the other communities of the county, particularly from Owinykibul where virtually no adults have completed primary level schooling.

Education level of household caretakers COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% None Some years of lower primary school (P1 to P4) Up to some years of higher primary school (P5 to P7) Completed Primary school Primary school and some years of Secondary School Completed Secondary school More than Secondary Some years of Accelerated Learning School

Illiteracy is also significant, where 30% of caretakers are incapable of reading Arabic or English, the former being the most common language among adults and the latter, the official language that generates most of the new knowledge brought by trainings and business opportunities.

Magwi % of HHs Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Can read Arabic of English 57% 79% 75% 61% 68% 69% 74% 67% 85% 71%

Furthermore, the language spoken at home is very rarely English or Arabic, and almost invariably Acholi.

% of HHs main language Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY spoken at home Centre Southern Luo / Acholi 86% 95% 93% 90% 92% 97% 100% 100% 97% 94% Other 14% 5% 4% 3% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 4% Arabic 0% 0% 4% 3% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% English 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1%

Primary education services are not abundant in Magwi, leaving 1/3 of households more than 30 minutes away from a school and as many as 2/3 HHs in Owinykibul payam. Furthermore, in places underserved as Owinykibul, there is basically no nearby school offering more than P5 grade. Finally, in places like Pajok, almost half of the families report that the nearby school is not functioning due to the structural damages, possibly occurred during conflict. To encourage returnees to come back to their homes these schools will need to be repaired.

WELFARE 28

Primary Education supply (distance from closest school, grades offered, school Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY rehabilitation, closest school not Centre functioning and reason) % of HHs with a school at less than 30- 57% 42% 52% 61% 57% 81% 83% 33% 89% 65% minute walk Only P1 to P3 8% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 2% Up to P4 8% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 2% Up to P5 0% 13% 7% 11% 0% 0% 11% 33% 3% 5% Up to P6 33% 25% 20% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% Up to P7 33% 13% 27% 26% 7% 7% 16% 0% 6% 14% Up to P8 17% 50% 33% 53% 89% 93% 68% 0% 78% 67% P8 and some secondary 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 5% 0% 13% 4% Improvement works made recently in the 29% 42% 27% 35% 40% 49% 52% 20% 58% 41% school Closer school not operating 35% 11% 33% 10% 15% 62% 43% 44% 14% 28%

reasons not operating - school damaged 57% 50% 33% 0% 29% 74% 30% 25% 0% 44% reason not operating - no teachers 43% 50% 44% 100% 43% 22% 50% 75% 40% 41% reason not operating - other reasons 0% 0% 22% 0% 29% 4% 20% 0% 60% 14%

Nonetheless, it is crucial to notice that adolescents are more likely to be in school compared to younger children, i.e. that younger children face greater barriers to education than adolescents. This is a well-known and yet almost invariably overlooked feature of primary education in South Sudan, as proved by the old age at which children enter the schooling system, a highly missed opportunity given the unique benefit that early education has on children’ development of cognitive abilities and social skills.14 These barriers are the main drivers of the poor educational outcomes in South Sudan, which have a wider and deeper impact compared to the interruption of studies at an adolescent age. Lack of financial means and distance of schools are highlighted as the two most important causes.

Magwi Primary Education "demand" Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Children (4 to 9 years) school 90% 67% 73% 72% 79% 90% 83% 63% 94% 81% enrollment - of which attending regularly 76% 62% 49% 54% 63% 72% 79% 54% 84% 66% Adolescents (10 to 15years) 91% 92% 75% 86% 83% 87% 96% 86% 95% 87% school enrollment - of which attending regularly 68% 85% 62% 62% 70% 83% 73% 71% 85% 73%

The review of the reasons why parents do not send their children and adolescents to school shows that the expenses related to schooling are by far the biggest obstacles, followed by the fact that schools are too far away or their conditions are too bad; lack of teachers is significant too; Insecurity per se is mentioned by a negligible share of families and pregnancy, although significant, does not seem to be as important as is commonly believed.

14 AVSI (2017) The state of primary education in Eastern Equatoria State and a call for a context-specific, integrated intervention. https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/south-sudan/assessment/state-education-eastern-equatoria-state-and-call- context-specific. See also United Nation (2018) Global Initiative on Out-of-school Children http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/global-initiative-out-of-school-children-south-sudan-country-study.pdf

WELFARE 29

Reasons for not attending schools Because there is no food in the schools Child is disabled or other impairments that prevent him or her He/she is in the age when has to help the family at home He/she is in the age when she/he needs to work Insecurity Not money to pay materials, fees, uniforms Pregnancy/Marriage School is too distant The kid refuse to go to class The school conditions are too bad There are not enough teachers To help the family in the filed/cattle/agriculture 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Adolescents between 10 and 15 Children between 4 and 9

However, it should be noticed that lack of teachers is among the top reasons why children are sent back from schools, hence is one of the main drivers of absenteeism, and possibly dropout.

% of HHs reporting children Magwi sent back home in the last Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre school term Not enough teachers 52% 37% 47% 35% 38% 35% 48% 50% 53% 43% Other reasons 19% 37% 27% 3% 20% 30% 26% 20% 19% 22% It did not happen 0% 5% 3% 13% 4% 14% 9% 10% 11% 8% As a form of punishment 19% 5% 10% 0% 6% 5% 4% 10% 6% 7% The student refused to go to 10% 16% 3% 0% 2% 3% 0% 10% 6% 4% classes

Shifting to more qualitative aspects related to the quality of education, it is important to notice, once again the marked differences registered among communities, in particular the condition of deprivation of students of Owinykibul. For example, in Owinykibul only 25% of children receives help for their homework while in the rest of the county is, on average, around 60%. This is not surprising taking into consideration the level of schooling of caretakers as mentioned before. This is an impacting factor on the cycle of poverty and levels of inequality.

Education out of school and Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY parent participation Centre Pupil has homework 44% 57% 43% 61% 63% 56% 68% 38% 58% 56% Pupil receive help for 25% 43% 38% 43% 60% 37% 63% 25% 58% 47% homework Parent know any teacher 56% 79% 38% 65% 69% 59% 58% 75% 77% 64% Parent attended school 89% 91% 75% 71% 75% 88% 73% 50% 88% 80% meeting (last year)

Taking into consideration only the students attending schools where English is the main language used in class, and focusing on those enrolled in P4 or higher classes, half can read basic sentences extracted from a textbook meant for P4 students, and only 69% can fully understand its meaning. Only half can do simple math (involving one or two-digit figures). There is very urgent need to improve teaching practices and to promote conditions conducive to learning in all Magwi county.

WELFARE 30

Magwi % of HHs by cognitive capacity Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Reading basic sentence N/A 56% 56% 25% 69% 45% 45% N/A 63% 53% Basic reading comprehension N/A 44% 67% 29% 69% 73% 73% N/A 87% 69% Basic numerical comprehension N/A 56% 89% 86% 88% 64% 100% N/A 88% 81% Basic numerical skills N/A 44% 56% 43% 81% 45% 36% N/A 31% 48% (additions)

WELFARE 31

7. PROTECTION and GENDER

In the absence of any formal system of social assistance, the (extended) family provides basic support to the most vulnerable people, a category that in Magwi encompasses a significant wide section of the population. Owinykibul, Magwi Centre and Obbo are the communities that deserve greater attention as they have the greater share of families in those condition of social vulnerability. Contrary to common belief, HHs with elderly do not suffer from worse food security conditions (see chapter 3) suggesting that social safety nets, and mutual support among members of the community is strong. Nevertheless, supporting these fragile safety nets remains important. Families with orphans do however show the need of greater assistance as they are more food insecure.

% of HHs by social vulnerability Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY condition Centre Child(ren) from other families, 62% 42% 53% 32% 52% 59% 78% 60% 67% 56% without mother or father Elderly who need assistance 10% 5% 7% 6% 8% 19% 4% 20% 25% 12% and/or cannot work Disable* person(s) who need 10% 5% 10% 10% 2% 11% 22% 30% 19% 11% assistance Widow or woman without the 10% 0% 7% 13% 8% 8% 13% 10% 8% 9% financial support of any male *defined as Physically impaired, Burned by fire, Deaf, Mental Disability, Lame

Mental distress in Magwi is less than half when compared to Torit county. However, it is still significant at the payam level, especially in Agoro where a quarter of the population seeks the repeated intervention of some healer (whose qualifications are difficult to assess but presumably inadequate).

% of HHs with family members Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY with mental condition Centre With several children 24% 11% 23% 29% 38% 22% 36% 10% 33% 28% withdrawn or consistently sad Felt so troubled that sought help more than once in the last 25% 5% 0% 3% 12% 3% 4% 0% 3% 6% year

With regard to child vulnerability, when HHs were asked the reasons for vulnerabilities, 47% reports the death of parents and perhaps most likely related to conflict, stated by 39%. More concerningly, kidnapping is also affecting a significant number of HHs in Iwire and Omeo.

Reasons for child vulnerability Need to move of location COUNTY Magwi Centre Customs Owinykibul Ignorance Obbo Pajok Kidnapping Lobone Divorce Palwar Iwire Death of parents Omeo Agoro Conflicts

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%

WELFARE 32

Moreover, around 23% of children and adolescents are reportedly subjected to repeated physical abuses, a very concerning 12% are sexually abused, while 14% are discriminated against. In Agoro, where regular attendance to school is among the lowest, and where mental distress is at a concerning level, children are more subjected to abuses. Magwi Centre also shows high levels of abuse.

% of HHs who suffered abuse on children 6 to 17 years over the last year Using abusive words/language COUNTY Withheld a meal to punish Magwi… Repeated physical abuse Owinykibul Obbo Involved in child labor with a Pajok component of exchange of money Lobone Family separation (run away, chased)/neglected Palwar Child involved in drugs, drinking Iwire alcohol, or otherwise Omeo Stigmatized/discriminated due to Agoro gender, illness or disability Sexually abused, defiled, raped, 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% forced into sex

Unfortunately, the vast majority of child abuse cases go unreported. Across Magwi, reporting child abuse to the police is negligible. Some cases are reported to community leaders (more so in Agoro and Pajok), highlighting importance of local governance.

% of HHs by referral paths in Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY case of child abuse or violence Centre Do nothing, talk to neighbors or 84% 88% 93% 96% 94% 88% 95% 89% 90% 91% the offender Report it to community leaders 16% 6% 7% 0% 4% 13% 5% 11% 7% 7% Report it to police 0% 6% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% 2%

Across the county, specific threats to women are also very prominent, once again, especially in Agoro. Domestic violence is almost equally present in all payams other than Magwi Centre, throughout the county almost half the population report abuse against women in the household. Incidence of rape is also worryingly high, reported by a quarter of the population and even more so in Iwire, Pajok and Magwi Centre. However, it must be taken into consideration that GBV throughout South Sudan is on the most part underreported so it is reasonable to assume that real figures may be higher than shown here15.

% of HHs reporting threats to Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY women (and types) Centre Presence of specific threats to 70% 61% 60% 53% 59% 57% 57% 50% 53% 58% women and girls

Domestic violence 48% 42% 43% 42% 48% 43% 43% 50% 39% 44% Physical assault / beating 57% 37% 37% 26% 38% 41% 39% 40% 33% 38% Rape 19% 16% 37% 13% 22% 30% 13% 10% 28% 23%

15 https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/south-sudan/assessment/effective-solutions-gender-based- violence-western--and-gok

WELFARE 33

Sexual assault 24% 11% 23% 26% 20% 22% 39% 10% 19% 22% Sexual exploitation 14% 11% 27% 19% 18% 19% 17% 20% 25% 19% Forced marriage 5% 5% 7% 13% 12% 16% 17% 0% 19% 12% Denied resources 5% 5% 17% 13% 6% 5% 17% 20% 8% 10% /opportunities / services Psychological / emotional abuse 10% 11% 7% 3% 4% 8% 9% 0% 6% 6%

it is evident that underreporting is an issue as the majority of HHs are unaware of a referral mechanism for cases of GBV, especially in Owinykibul and Iwire. This is particularly concerning as the latter payam presents the most incidences of GBV.

Magwi % of HHs Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Aware of referral mechanism 42% 21% 18% 35% 37% 29% 30% 10% 38% 31% for GBV

Finally, it should be noticed that protecting women requires also sensitizing women themselves. In fact, it is very common for women to condone abusive behaviours on the part of their husbands. Only a startling 4% of respondents believe that there is no case in which a husband is not justified in physically attacking his wife.

% of women reporting that a man is justified when beating his wife If he is too drunk

if she does not respect him COUNTY Magwi Centre if she argues with him Owinykibul Obbo If she neglects the children Pajok If she goes out without telling him Lobone

Palwar If she refused to have sex with him Iwire Omeo if she burns the food Agoro In no cases is the husband justified in hitting 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% or beating his wife

Undoubtedly the gender-gap contributes to the reproduction of questionable habits and stereotypes. In Magwi, 40% of adult females have not received any education compared to 17% of males (not shown). Conversely, the share of male adults with a level of education beyond completed primary school is consistently much higher compared to females. Programs for accelerated learning, which may provide a second chance of education to groups lacking behind, are only attended by men.

WELFARE 34

Level of shooling of adults (respondents) by gender 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Some years of lower primary school (P1 to P4) Up to some years of higher primary school (P5 to P7) Completed Primary school Primary school and some years of Secondary School Completed Secondary school More than Secondary Some years of Accelerated Learning School Female Male

The gender imbalance is present in other domains too. Taking into consideration the social norm of polygamy in South Sudan, on average a man has 2.6 wives which is likely to have social repercussions.

Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Average number of wives per 1.0 2.3 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.6 man

Finally, the condition of those 7% of women who are either the only or the main contributor to the family livelihood should be assessed (an approximation of female-headed families, who strictly speaking do not exist as female-headed families but customarily join other families).

Male vs Female contribution to familiy income COUNTY Magwi… Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Only wife/female partner mostly wife/female partner Both partners/husband and wife mostly husband/male partner Only husband/male partner

Female-headed families suffer worse food security conditions than non-female headed HHs. When considering the percentage of HHs with a poor food consumption, between the two categories there is little significant difference, however when looking at the proportion of HHs with acceptable food consumption, there is a sizable difference where non-female headed households are much better off. Generally, there is no great difference between the two types of HH when considering contact with leaders and direct participation. However, despite efforts to focus on vulnerable HHs, female-headed HHs are visibly much less involved in the support provided by the humanitarian system. These results clearly indicate the need to improve programming.

WELFARE 35

Non Female- female- Food security and associationism and voice of female headed families headed headed families families acceptable 36% 63% Food borderline 50% 26% consumption poor 14% 11% No particular role 40% 45% Teacher 13% 20% Member of a Nyampara or Mukungu 13% 19% decision Sector leader 7% 2% making / public bodies Landlord 0% 2% Administrative authority 13% 6% Chairman or committee member of informal farmer group 13% 12% Nyampara or Mukungu 40% 33% Sector leader 33% 9% Direct Administrative authority 0% 11% contact with Landlord 0% 3% leaders Chairman of farmer groups supported by NGO 0% 3% Chairman of informal farmer groups 0% 14% Opinion leader 7% 14% Participation Attended public meeting 100% 95% Agricultural inputs i.e. seeds and or tools 40% 31% Health /medicines 13% 18% Food in the Schools 20% 21% Nutrition (e.g. Blanket supplementary feeding, etc) 0% 13% Food distribution or food in exchange for work 0% 9% Humanitarian Veterinary service 13% 7% support Non Food Items (kitchen sets, blankets, Khanga) 0% 3% Advise from extension service 0% 2% Cash and or cash in exchange for work 0% 1% Fishing gear 0% 0% School fees /uniforms 0% 6% Informal group of farmers 27% 72% Farmer group supported by NGO 20% 13% Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA)/ Credit and Saving Group 7% 13% Member of an income Cooperative/SME 7% 10% Women group; Church group; Self-help group; Community-based organization, Youth group generation 20% 20% Health association Others 0% 1% Common Interest group/Seed Multiplication group 7% 4% Income Generation Association group (IGA) 0% 1%

WELFARE 36

ECONOMY

Returning to the original concept ascribed to the word “economy”, the management of the household, this second section of the report describes the main economic decisions taken by Magwi’s families and explains their logic and determinants. It reviews agricultural and livestock farming & marketing (chapter 8 and 9), access to consumer markets and expenditures (chapter 10), productive assets, energy and NFI (chapter 11), and the humanitarian and development support (chapter 12).

8. AGRICULTURE • When HHs in Magwi were asked “what is the main strength of your community” by far the single most cited answer was “farming” (82% - data not shown). There is no question as to the importance of agriculture in the livelihood of the population of Magwi. The county generally enjoys a relatively good access to markets (Chapter 10) in comparison to their neighbours, Torit. There is ample evidence that indicates that some farmers sell large share of their produce out of a deliberate livelihood strategy. However, it cannot be assumed that all those selling a greater share of their produce are necessarily more well-off as it is not uncommon for worse off families to sell larger than average share of their produce to the market out of necessity, rather than as a result of a profitable orientation toward the market. • In general, the data shows that: a small yet significant number of HHs in Magwi are cultivating land that are sizeably apt for commercial purposes (fields of more than 5Ha); there are few monocrop farmers; 93% of HHs sell some farming produce; all HHs in Magwi are equally inclined to sell around 15% of their produce. Overall, HHs in Magwi demonstrate more market-oriented behaviour in comparison to other counties in Eastern Equatoria (namely Torit and ). This is by far not the case in all HHs and further investigation is needed to reach a solid conclusion.

Land under cultivation and water access Agricultural farming is conducted by virtually all households in Magwi county where almost 90% of HHs cultivate all the plots of land owned. In Agoro, Palwar and Obbo, the only payams where more than 1 in 10 HHs do not cultivate all the land owned, the main reasons given were lack of human power and tools (namely ox-ploughs) to open the lands (data not shown) suggesting the abundance of land as well as limited role of mechanization.

Magwi % of HHs Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Cultivating land 100% 95% 100% 100% 94% 92% 100% 100% 92% 96% Average # of plots of land 2.2 2.6 2.7 3.6 3.7 2.3 3.0 2.6 3.5 3.0 owned Cultivating all plots owned 79% 93% 90% 84% 83% 89% 79% 100% 85% 86% Given some plots to others to 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 7% 2% use Not using some plots of land 21% 7% 10% 16% 11% 11% 21% 0% 7% 12% Living more than 30 minutes away from the family cultivated 19% 17% 20% 10% 28% 33% 22% 40% 30% 24% fields

Number of people contributing 3.4 3.9 3.3 4.3 4.1 3.2 3.5 4.8 4.0 3.8 to cultivation

ECONOMY 37

58% of families, cultivate small private/family gardens, less than 1 hectare (Ha) of land – a quantity that is insufficient to cover a family needs when cultivated following traditional farming practices. Fortunately, in addition to private land, half of the population cultivate communal land or in a way that is coordinated. This tends to permit the adoption of more productive farming practices. Furthermore, these communal plots of land are on the most part of larger size and better located. In Magwi, 12% of the population cultivates land of more than 5Ha, i.e. of a size that is apt for commercial purposes. Although this is still a low percentage, it triples that of Torit, where only 4% of HHs cultivate sizeable land and demonstrates that agricultural practices in Magwi are more commercially orientated than in Torit. This could be as a result of having easier access to markets in and Uganda. However, the need to encourage animal traction and other mechanical/mechanized methods to open large fields of land to cultivations is still evident.

Magwi % of HH Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Cultivating less than 1 Ha. of 71% 61% 67% 68% 55% 50% 39% 60% 58% 58% PRIVATE land Cultivating between 1 and 2 Ha. 14% 21% 20% 19% 26% 19% 35% 20% 25% 23% of PRIVATE land Cultivating more than 2 Ha. of 5% 5% 3% 0% 8% 5% 9% 10% 0% 5% PRIVATE land

Cultivating PRIVATE and 43% 50% 57% 52% 47% 38% 48% 60% 48% 48% COMMON land

Cultivating also COMMON 14% 11% 3% 10% 13% 15% 13% 20% 12% 12% LAND of 5 OR MORE Ha

In all, one third of the population engages in smallholder farming -- household cultivating only private land of a size of less than 1 ha (insufficient to cover food needs for one entire year). Still, there are ample differences among communities: in Agoro, a payam with a low FCS, the share of smallholders reaches almost 45% of the population, while in Owinykibul, the only payam with an acceptable FCS, 10% of HHs are smallholder farmers. It is worth noting that it is not always the case that the more food insecure communities are those with a larger percentage of smallholder farmers. Lobone, for example, has a large percentage of smallholder farmers but has a relatively better food security condition in comparison to other payams. Other dynamics such agroclimatic conditions, cultivation practices, access to market, to name only a few, must also be considered.

Magwi % of HH Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Less than 1ha of private land 43% 28% 23% 35% 36% 35% 26% 10% 27% 31% without common land Less than 1ha of private land 29% 33% 43% 32% 19% 15% 13% 50% 30% 27% plus common land More than 1ha private land 14% 22% 20% 13% 17% 26% 26% 30% 24% 21% without common land More than 1ha private land 14% 17% 13% 19% 28% 24% 35% 10% 18% 21% with common land

Compared to last year, the size of the land under cultivation has increased for most families, particularly for those cultivating more than 1Ha of private land, especially for those cultivating both more than 1Ha of private land and common land.

ECONOMY 38

Variation in private land cultivated compared to one year before

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Less than 1ha of private land without common land Less than 1ha of private land plus common land More than 1ha private land without common land More than 1ha private land with common land County

Cultivating larger size Cultivating smaller size Cultivating the same size

To better appreciate the land available for agriculture it is important to review its characteristics and quality. Access to water provides a first glimpse of this. 50% of the population rely on a water source that changes depending on the season. In particular, farmers in Omeo face more limited access to water as they must walk further distances for access.

Magwi Access to water* Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Water source changes 52% 44% 38% 45% 51% 46% 55% 67% 53% 49% depending on season

Less than 30 minutes 90% 68% 87% 74% 76% 89% 87% 100% 94% 84% Between 30 minutes and 1 hour 10% 21% 10% 26% 18% 11% 13% 0% 3% 13% Between 1 hour and 2 hours 0% 11% 3% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% *all distances given are measured in terms of walking distance to go and come back from water sources

The information on the presence of spoiled boreholes and water management committees reveals that the county would greatly benefit from repairs as almost half of all households have a closer yet non-functioning borehole; still, there are some marked differences among payams.

Access to water in the past and Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY (possibly) future Centre Presence of closer non- 48% 16% 61% 29% 44% 60% 45% 10% 42% 43% functioning boreholes Presence water management 62% 47% 68% 42% 67% 60% 74% 50% 74% 62% committees

In fact, water is consistently reported as one of the most important problems the population at large would like the administration to address (Chapter 2), and is cited as the second most important determinant of farming performances (be it due to shortages or flooding). Special attention should also be paid to the most cited factor impacting farming in Magwi: pests and diseases, especially in Agoro and Obbo.

ECONOMY 39

Pests and diseases Main challanges reported by farmers Flooding COUNTY Magwi… Shortage of rain Owinyki… Heavy weed and infestation Obbo Shortage of seeds Pajok Lobone Shortage of hand tools Palwar Labor constraints Iwire Loss of crops Omeo High cost of seeds Agoro Lack of plough tools/equipment (ox- 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% plough or tractor)

Farming variety

In Magwi, very few farmers (4%) only cultivate one crop. Even then, as shown in chapter 3, it is not always the case that monocrop farmers are worse off in terms of food security, another reminder that identifying the most vulnerable farmer characteristics is complex and multifaceted.

Magwi Number of types of cultivation Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Only 1 (monocrop) 0% 6% 7% 6% 2% 12% 0% 0% 0% 4% Only 2 5% 28% 0% 3% 11% 12% 9% 0% 12% 9%

Any vegetable 29% 6% 30% 32% 39% 32% 48% 60% 39% 35% Fruit 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 0% 1%

In general, the widespread cultivation of vegetables is also noticeable. Farmers cultivate a relatively wide variety of crops, especially in Owinykibul, the most food secure community and much less so in Pajok and Omeo, the more food insecure communities. What is also noticeable is that the 3 communities with the lowest FCS (Iwire, Agoro and Omeo) are also those that produce less maize, a crop that is generally more stored for later consumption (see below). Additionally, the more nutrient crops of beans and groundnuts are not so widely cultivated within Magwi. Beans are even less cultivated in those 3 more food insecure communities mentioned before.

ECONOMY 40

Crop/Vegetable produced by HHs (in both private and common land)

COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% Maize Cassava Millet/Simsim Sorgum long Variety Groundnuts Beans Other Vegetables Sorghum short variety Cowpeas Irish potato Other Greens Eggplants Tomato Onion Fruit

When asked about the seeds that they would like to receive the most, maize is the most requested crop by far. This is followed by Sorghum (both varieties), groundnuts, beans and simsim/millet. Only in Iwire is sorghum instead of maize, the most sought-after seed.

Seeds most in need COUNTY Magwi… Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Maize Sorghum short variety Groundnuts Sorghum long variety Beans Simsim/Millet Cassava Vegetables Other plants Cowpeas

There is a very slight distinction between the crop generally used for consumption and sale. Millet, simsim and cassava tend to be produced mostly for sale proposes while maize and sorghum (long variety) is generally more stored for later consumption. However, this may not occur in all HHs and many farmers may very well simply store and sell produce with whatever is available at that given time.

ECONOMY 41

Crop by purpose 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Sorghum long variety Groundnuts Maize Sorghum short variety Millet&Simsim Cassava Beans

Irish potato Stored for later consumption Produced mostly for sale purpose

Upgrading farming (farmer groups, communal farming, agronomic practices, inputs and capital) To provide effective support to farmers, it is important to distinguish them according to their ability to produce above subsistence levels, supply the market, and eventually engage in business farming. Making such a distinction is not an easy task in South Sudan, as it cannot be assumed that those selling a greatest share of their production are necessarily more well-off. In fact, it is not uncommon for worse off families to sell larger than average share of their produce to the market out of necessity, rather than as a result of a profitable orientation toward the market. It is therefore necessary to juxtapose the analysis of poverty (end of Chapter 3) with the analysis of the market orientation of farmers to tell apart who is choosing to sell to the market as a result of a deliberate livelihood strategy of specialization, and who is doing that only as a result of a coping strategy. To this end categories of farmers must be identified. Beside the size of the field cultivated, famers can be reviewed in relation to their membership to a farmer association. As revealed in Chapter 3, farmer groups supported by NGOs tend to show better food security compared to informal farmer groups, in fact they almost half their chances to show a poor FCS. Households who are not associated at all tend to be those with a worse food security condition. However, surprisingly, farmers who are members of a seed multiplication group have a worse FCS compared to the average farmer, very much the opposite of what is found in Torit. It is crucial to remember that most of these associations were disrupted by civil war and so the commitment to and quality of such groups are variable. Additionally, 14% of HHs are part of a farmer group supported by an NGO in Magwi, there are marked differences among communities however. In Iwire the proportion stands at 23% whereas in Pajok it is only 3%. When it comes to overall association in groups, Magwi Centre, Owinykibul and Obbo show high levels of association whereas Pajok, the payam with high levels of crime and hazards (see chapter 14) show markedly low levels of associations.

ECONOMY 42

Membership in association/group COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% Farmer group supported by NGO Common Interest group/Seed Multiplication group Cooperative/SME Informal group of farmers Women group; Church group; Self-help group; Community-based organization, Youth group Health Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA)/ Credit and Saving Group Income Generation Association group (IGA) Others No association

It is worth noting that almost everywhere farmer groups supported by NGOs tend to be “younger” compared to the informal farmer organization. This is consistent with anecdotal evidence that says that NGO supporting agriculture have a tendency to support newly-established rather than well-established group of farmers, contributing to the continuous reshuffling hence the poor governance of farmer groups – certainly, the reshuffling of farmer groups is also a consequence of instability and human displacement. It is interesting to note that this problem in targeting seems to decrease the more accessible are the payams, confirming the possibility that targeting is done too much in a rush and without enough knowledge in remote communities.

Robustness of Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY farmer groups Centre Average 4.8 6.1 3.8 4.6 3.1 3.3 4.2 5.5 3.6 4.0 membership (years) Informal farmer # of HHs associated 28 32 25 30 25 23 28 24 27 groups 35 Recorded by county 67% 50% 55% 64% 56% 60% 78% 67% 68% 62% or payam official Average 2.8 3.5 3.2 4.5 1.4 1.0 4.3 2.0 3.7 3.2 NGO membership (years) supported # of HHs associated 33 33 25 32 25 30 25 25 29 28 farmer Recorded by county groups 100% 50% 60% 75% 80% 100% 33% 0% 100% 74% or payam official Presence of 3 or more farmer 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 associations per village

ECONOMY 43

Farmers The other aspect that is commonly reviewed to identify the most successful Land regarded most with important for livelihood common farmers is their participation in communal farming, which tends to occur in land fields of land of larger-than-average size, increasing the potential benefits of What is cultivated in the economies of scale. Besides their size, private and communal lands are not 48% PRIVATE land much different when it comes to their location and the effort put in place over BOTH cultivations are 38% the last year to expand the area cultivated. Moreover, as one would expect important from subsistence farmers, private/family land is regarded as the most What is cultivated in the 14% important. COMMON land

Magwi Family vs Common land Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre plots of common land above 56% 56% 47% 50% 73% 62% 64% 50% 56% 58% 1ha plots of family land above 1ha 29% 39% 33% 32% 45% 50% 61% 40% 42% 42%

plots of common land closer 67% 67% 41% 44% 41% 38% 45% 17% 38% 44% than 15 minutes from home plots of family land closer than 67% 72% 70% 71% 43% 42% 57% 50% 42% 55% 15 minutes from home Cultivating this year larger size of land among communal 44% 67% 41% 75% 68% 62% 64% 67% 50% 60% farmers Cultivating this year larger size 48% 50% 37% 61% 57% 59% 74% 80% 64% 57% of land among private farmers

However, crucially, communal land is, more often than private land, cultivated for commercial purposes (produce sold to the market) and saved in the form of seeds, rather than for self-consumption.

Usage of harvested crop on private land vs. common land

Other Exchanged for animals to breed Exchanged for animals to eat Saved in the form of seeds Sold it to get money Consumed it 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Common land Private land

Moreover, when the produce of common land is sold the revenue is “reinvested” in farming or saved. The cash obtained is also used to pay workers which indicates an economy of scale that permits the hiring of extra manpower. These are just tendencies, and further investigation is needed to reach a solid conclusion. Nevertheless, there is enough evidence to justify paying attention to the aspect of communal farming, and distinguish it from family farming.

ECONOMY 44

Use of cash obtained through the sale of produce Fill personal or common saving account Other goods or services Nutrient-rich food (meat, pulses, etc.) Agricultural inputs / Payment of laborers Clothing Basic food School Fees / medication Soap / Oil 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Common Private

The adoption of basic agronomic practices is another aspect to consider to tell apart the most productive farmers from the subsistence farmers. 15% of farmers have no notion of soil and water conservation practices; this is particularly striking considering that it is indeed the management of water that is one of the aspects with greater consequences for farmers (see above). Surprisingly, as the poverty profile in chapter 3 shows, farmers that are not aware of farming practices are not more food insecure than the average. As such, unfortunately, the results obtained are not much revealing. This could be due to the misreporting of this question or to the possibility that soil and water conservation techniques are not such a determining factor in Magwi as it is in Torit for example, due to the better agroclimatic conditions. In reality, it is very well known that farmers, who are aware of the existence of farming best practices, do not master such techniques, possibly the results of too many occasional trainings and too little continuous and direct support to the actual farming/production of farmers, in their respective homes. Finally, in line with studies conducted in other areas of South Sudan, farmers are relatively less knowledgeable of soil and water conservation practices, techniques which nevertheless have a tremendous beneficial impact.

Disregard/unawareness of Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY basic agronomic practices Centre Not familiar with any specific 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% planting practice Not familiar with any specific 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% farming practice Not familiar with soil & water 24% 21% 27% 10% 4% 16% 13% 20% 17% 15% conservation practice Familiar with agricultural practices in each of the 3 76% 79% 73% 90% 96% 84% 87% 80% 83% 85% domains

Burning of bushes for clearing the land 95% 95% 97% 81% 78% 78% 100% 100% 83% 87%

Being aware of and employing seed quality is another important aspect to consider when assessing farmers’ productivity. Generally, farmers using improved seeds show remarkably good results in term of food security (see Chapter 3).

Knowledge on seed variety and Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY productivity Centre Aware of seeds variety 55% 44% 53% 63% 65% 64% 74% 70% 52% 60% Farmers employing prime 40% 39% 38% 59% 59% 52% 65% 50% 45% 51% quality seeds

ECONOMY 45

The purchase of basic agricultural inputs such as hoes or local seeds is largely widespread – something that questions the need for intervention of mere distribution of such basic agricultural inputs. Targeting may also be of an issue as the more food insecure payams such as Agoro and Omeo receive the least support in terms of NGOs seeds distribution.

Source of basic agricultural Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY inputs and of seeds Centre Shop in town 100% 94% 97% 87% 94% 91% 100% 100% 97% 95% From community members 43% 44% 40% 39% 32% 18% 22% 30% 22% 31% Sellers who pass by 5% 17% 7% 19% 4% 6% 0% 10% 3% 7% No purchase of inputs or tools/ 0% 0% 0% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% you produce them by yourself

SEEDS - Own stocks 81% 84% 73% 97% 86% 70% 83% 90% 78% 82% SEEDS - Purchase 62% 68% 67% 45% 58% 59% 74% 70% 58% 61% SEEDS - Gifts 10% 11% 10% 3% 4% 8% 0% 0% 11% 7% SEEDS - NGOs 5% 5% 7% 10% 10% 11% 9% 10% 3% 8%

Hiring casual workers or community members (for a price that ranges from 500 to 700 SSP per kattala of land worked) is not uncommon – a sign of the viability of implementing more decisively incentives-for-work schemes. However, it should be emphasized that farmers reporting the hiring of casual workers do not enjoy very good food security conditions (Chapter 3).

% of HHs employing labour Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY beside family members Centre No use of labour 19% 11% 27% 10% 16% 22% 30% 30% 19% 19%

Community members, in 76% 74% 57% 77% 68% 51% 70% 70% 56% 65% exchange for food Community members, on a 14% 21% 20% 23% 12% 11% 9% 10% 6% 14% reciprocity basis Community members, in 14% 21% 37% 52% 40% 27% 26% 20% 33% 33% exchange for money Casual Labour (per day) 48% 37% 30% 29% 32% 41% 48% 40% 47% 38% Other people 0% 0% 0% 3% 2% 3% 0% 0% 3% 2%

The most common functions of these workers are planting and weeding and to a slightly lesser extent, harvesting and plowing.

Planting Function of additional labour Weeding Land plowing and preparation Harvesting Selling crops Livestock care Other uses 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Livestock sale

ECONOMY 46

Lending, either money or assets, is common practice in Magwi county.

Borrowing experience and Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY capacity (% of HHs) Centre Never borrowed money 24% 37% 37% 26% 24% 41% 22% 20% 33% 30% Never borrowed assets 29% 26% 53% 35% 40% 49% 43% 50% 53% 43% Capable of borrowing 200 USD 19% 22% 10% 17% 18% 14% 9% 30% 22% 17% if needed

However, it is very uncommon for people to use borrowed funds to invest in their business; instead they are mostly used to cover health, education and basic needs. This should be kept in mind by microcredit enthusiasts: without opportunities of investments access to credit, most of the times, simply turns into debts.

Magwi Use of borrowed money Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Health (medicine, treatments) 85% 100% 100% 88% 92% 93% 92% 80% 100% 93% Immediate Basic Needs (food, 77% 70% 58% 65% 68% 64% 67% 80% 77% 69% clothes) Education (fees, uniforms, 69% 40% 42% 59% 44% 29% 50% 40% 77% 50% books) Productive (Set up business, 0% 10% 0% 12% 12% 7% 8% 0% 0% 7% buy fertilizer) Other 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Market-oriented farming Fostering market-oriented farming is one of the main objectives pursued by agricultural development projects. Operationally, such programs require the identification of the most advanced farmers. This is far from an easy task, due to a number of reasons. First of all, given the limited economic specialization, there is not a clear demarcation between those selling to the market and those producing for self-consumption: virtually every farmer does both – even the most vulnerable farmer needs to sell some produce to cover urgently needed goods (drugs for a sick person, for instance). Moreover, although the quantity sold by a vulnerable farmer may be limited, as a share of the farmer total production the amount sold can represent a large percentage, even larger than the share of produced sold by more advance farmers.

Second, in an economy of subsistence, the role of the market is not simply quantitively minor, it is rather qualitatively different compared to market-oriented communities. By and large people regard farming first and foremost as an activity aimed at feeding their family members, and possibly relatives. Moreover, there is not a strong distinction between the sale and bartering of products. Finally, the sale or bartering of farming production, in most communities is as important as its sharing and giving away for free. Far from being just a sign of “missed business opportunity”, giveaways are most of the time later reciprocated, hence represent a form of exchange too, possibly even a smarter exchange given the context, as it opens up the possibility for further support in case of severe need, in other words come along with what in market oriented society would be called an insurance or a line of credit.

By juxtaposing the average share of produce sold or exchanged by families and the share of families who sell at all in the markets, all communities in Magwi are equally inclined to the sale of farming products. As explained above this can indicate one of two things: either HHs are equally selling a proportion of their produce out of need or throughout Magwi there is a reasonable notion of market-oriented farming and subsequent sale of produce.

ECONOMY 47

Magwi % Use of produce Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Consumed in the household 78% 80% 78% 79% 78% 81% 78% 84% 78% 79% Given out for free 7% 7% 6% 8% 8% 6% 8% 8% 8% 7% Sold to the market or 15% 14% 16% 13% 16% 12% 15% 9% 14% 14% exchanged % of families who sell some 90% 89% 93% 97% 98% 95% 96% 100% 78% 93% farming produce

Finally, it is crucial to review the propensity to exchange and % of produce sold or exchanged by type of farmer County sell in the market of the different groups of farmers identified in this chapter. All farmers 14.1% It is confirmed that the smallholder and monocrop farmers Family members with disabilities 9.7% tend to sell the least to the market, while those engaged in 10.9% a farmer group supported by an NGO or hiring casual Not associated in any income generation group 11.3% workers are those who sell the greatest share of their Member of a seed multiplication group produce. 12.5% By taking into consideration also the food security Smallholder (less than 1ha of private land only) conditions of the different group of farmers, moreover, it is With ability to borrow $200 12.7% Bartered what obtained with main livelihood 12.7% confirmed the duality of the market orientation of farmers: activity among the most engaged in sale to the market there are With 4 or more plots of land 13.4% groups of farmers with a good food security conditions such Cultivating only one crop 13.4% as those those employing seeds of prime quality or those With elderly 13.7% with access to ox-ploughs– they are farmers who chose to Hosting orphans 14.0% Employing community members in exchange for sell to the market out of a specialization livelihood strategy 14.1% money – and group of farmers with a rather bad food security Employing advanced tools 14.2% condition such as those without cattle– they are farmers Consuming what obtained with main livelihood 14.2% who sell to the market because they need to get some cash activity to cover some basic expenses, following a sort of coping 14.3% Member of an informal farmer group strategy approach. Not applying agricultural practices (in some of the 3 14.3% However, on the whole, those that sell more than the domains) average, excluding the group of farmers without cattle, are 14.3% More than 4 family member cultivating all groups that do not have a below than average poor FCS Cultivating land in common 14.7% or actually enjoy better food security conditions (see 14.8% chapter 3), as such there is evidence to suggest that those Cash obtained with main livelihood activity selling more are doing so out of more market-oriented Household with acceptable FCS 14.8% behaviour rather than out of need, putting Magwi in a Without cattle 14.9% slightly different category compared to other counties such Widow or woman with no support 15.0% 15.2% as Torit and Ikotos. With more than 1ha of private land With access to ox-plough 15.3% Employing causal labour 15.3% Employing seeds of prime quality 15.9% IDP/Returnees 17.2% 17.9% Member of farmer group supported by an NGO

ECONOMY 48

On the whole, it is also observed that while half of HHs sell produce to the market, selling to community members is also very significant in most payams. Additionally, in Magwi Centre, more produce is able to be sold in faraway markets due to its easier access to Juba (see chapter 10). In comparison to Torit, where around 60% of HHs sell produce to the local market or community members, the proportion of HHs in Magwi that does so reaches almost 80%. Again, this may suggest greater market-oriented farming in Magwi.

Magwi Market of sale of produce Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre You take it to the local market 57% 53% 40% 55% 66% 43% 57% 60% 47% 53% To community members 14% 26% 37% 29% 20% 27% 35% 10% 14% 24% You take it to a faraway market 10% 11% 7% 3% 2% 5% 4% 0% 22% 7% I do not sell it out 0% 5% 3% 0% 8% 19% 4% 10% 8% 7% Buyers from local markets 5% 0% 10% 3% 2% 0% 0% 20% 6% 4% come to my area and buy it Buyers from far away counties 5% 0% 0% 3% 2% 5% 0% 0% 3% 2% come to my area and buy it You take it to another country 10% 5% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% for selling

Although the majority of HHs are content with where they sell their produce, 50% would like to sell in other established markets but face obstacles including a lack of economic means for transport or poor road conditions.

I get the best price at this market Reason for selling in this market No economic means to transport to COUNTY other markets Magwi… Poor road conditions spoil the Owinyki… produce/do not allow for reaching Obbo other markets Because i sell little and it is not worth Pajok to travel Lobone Insecurity on roads Palwar Iwire Omeo I am not aware of prices at other markets so I do not know if it is worth Agoro it Other reasons 0% 50% 100% 150% 200%

ECONOMY 49

Support to farming

It is vital to link efforts of the humanitarian sector with the state of agriculture. HHs in Owinykibul, the most food secure community in Magwi, are perhaps understandably receiving the least number of trainings. However, in Iwire, Omeo and Pajok, the more food insecure communities, HHs are also receiving comparatively less number of trainings. It is therefore essential to understand the targeting and effectiveness of such programmes.

Magwi Received training Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Yes 33% 28% 28% 45% 40% 24% 39% 10% 25% 32%

It is also observed that many HHs receive training on different types of seeds. A lot of training is provided on vegetables and a fair amount on more highly nutritious crops such as beans, yet there is definitely room for improvement for this particular crop and on fruit (which has no training at all).

Cultivation supported by the training COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% 500% Maize Groundnuts Eggplants Tomato Greens - sukuma Sorghum short variety Other Vegetables Onion Beans Millet Cowpeas Sorghum long variety Cassava Other Irish potato Fruit

Most HHs receive agricultural support in the form of seeds, tools and trainings.

% of HHs by type of support Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY received Centre Seeds 80% 64% 59% 55% 68% 70% 75% 60% 53% 65%

Tools 60% 64% 53% 45% 43% 50% 44% 60% 63% 52%

Training 20% 0% 24% 60% 25% 15% 13% 0% 11% 22%

Money / loans 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Animals 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 1%

Other 20% 36% 35% 20% 25% 20% 25% 40% 37% 27%

ECONOMY 50

9. LIVESTOCK FARMING

• Beside farming, animal husbandry is also an important activity in Magwi, whereby 50% of HHs rear animals. Evidence shows that in comparison to Torit, those in Magwi show reasons for livestock farming that are not related to self-consumption but rather for commercial purpose/for selling, saving purposes and draught animals/working purposes. However, it is also clear from the production and sale of milk that there are little numbers of milk-producing animals or that the diet of these animals is very poor. Either way, this shows that Magwi, unlike Torit or Ikotos, cannot be considered a pastoral community, and livestock farming is not as crucial to livelihood as agricultural faming is. Furthermore, even though communities such as Owinykibul and Palwar have a greater share of animals, milk and meat consumption is not better within these communities (chapter 3), another indication that the little livestock rearing that occurs is mostly for sale purposes rather than self-consumption. Finally, as more than 1/3 of HHs are reporting very many deaths of animals due to disease and only 1/5 of HHs have been able to vaccinate their animals, livestock farming could be further supported through better access to veterinary and extension services. it is important that agriculture and animal farming are reviewed together, for they have important implications on one another: for instance, families not engaged in animal farming feel more obliged to sell or exchange a significant part of their produce to acquire meat, whereas animal keepers are less pressed to do so; another example: cattle keepers communities, more accustomed to survive on their own, do not find it easy to group into famer groups. Evidently, agriculture farming and animal husbandry combine to determine food security conditions, whereby families rearing animals, especially cattle, often consume milk, which in South Sudan distinguishes families with access to a relatively more complete and nutritious diet.

Half of Magwi’s population engage in rearing animals. Besides Owinykibul, who are specialized in cattle keeping, Palwar has an important activity related to sheep and goat herding.

Magwi % of HHs Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Rearing animals 38% 63% 53% 84% 56% 32% 57% 90% 56% 56%

Cattle 0% 0% 7% 6% 14% 5% 9% 40% 3% 8% Sheep/goats 33% 42% 37% 71% 38% 8% 43% 60% 42% 39% Ducks/Turkeys/Chickens 19% 42% 43% 55% 24% 27% 30% 60% 39% 35% Pigs 5% 16% 7% 6% 10% 3% 13% 0% 8% 8%

of which are vaccinated animal 13% 25% 31% 12% 18% 17% 31% 22% 11% 19%

Reasons for livestock rearing and commercialization

The rearing of animals, of cattle and goats in particular, is not an activity like others in South Sudan. The motives that underpin this activity are, in fact, multifaceted, and making a living, important as it is, is only one among others also very important: marriage, self-consumption (often in the context of key social celebrations), and saving are almost as important a motivation as the commercial purpose. Indeed, in some communities, such as Agoro, the commercial purpose per se is among the least important of motivations. However, it should be highlighted that the more ‘sophisticated’ reasons for livestock rearing (i.e. factors not related to mere self-consumption - commercial purpose/for selling, saving purposes, draught animals/working purposes) are a much more important factor in Magwi compared to Torit.

ECONOMY 51

Magwi Reason for breeding cattle Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre 69% Household consumption 63% 83% 50% 65% 75% 58% 85% 89% 65% (66%) 66% Commercial purpose/for selling 25% 50% 50% 69% 86% 67% 85% 44% 70% (45%) 58% For marriage 50% 50% 75% 69% 57% 17% 69% 67% 50% (80%) 33% For saving purposes 63% 50% 31% 27% 29% 17% 38% 11% 45% (16%) 10% Draught animals/working purposes 13% 0% 0% 0% 11% 25% 23% 11% 15% (1%) *data in brackets from Torit Multisector survey also conducted in January 2020

It is important to recognize that cattle keepers, as farmers, are composed by different groups. One of such differences is that while the majority of families are organized so as to conduct animal husbandry in a coordinated fashion, almost 40% of animal rearers work independently. In Pajok, where crime levels are high (chapter 14), no HH rears animals collectively.

Magwi % of HHs with livestock Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre

Rearing animals in group (kraal) 43% 38% 50% 57% 67% 0% 40% 86% 71% 56%

By looking at the sale of animals, Owinykibul and Palwar are confirmed to have a privileged position in animal husbandry, representing the main providers of animal products to Magwi’s market.

Magwi % of HHs with livestock Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Who have sold livestock 24% 26% 23% 45% 20% 5% 30% 40% 31% 25%

The same than last year 20% 0% 43% 33% 29% 0% 83% 33% 20% 32% This year I sold less 20% 40% 14% 50% 57% 50% 17% 67% 70% 44% This year I sold more 60% 60% 43% 17% 14% 50% 0% 0% 10% 25%

As with agriculture farmers however, it is important to distinguish which livestock farmers sell to the market as a coping strategy to receive cash to cover some basic expenses or those that do so as a result of market orientation. There are differences at county level where around 10% of HHs sell livestock as a coping strategy in Owinykibul and Omeo. A concerning 1/4 HHs in Agoro, actually report having already exhausted this possibility. However, considering Magwi as a whole, an assumption can be made that the sale of livestock does not occur as a result of a coping strategy.

Magwi % of HHs Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre selling livestock as coping strategy 0% 8% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 2%

already sold animals available 25% 0% 6% 0% 0% 8% 8% 0% 0% 3%

Moreover, it could be argued that the fact that a large portion of trades of livestock is made through the aid of a middle man who comes to the communities from nearby or far away markets, rather than as a result of the livestock keepers travelling to the market with the intent of making a better profit it is an indication of the fact that commercial farming is still not practiced widely. On the other hand, the difficult access to markets (see below)

ECONOMY 52

makes sale more difficult while the significant sale to community members is a sign of a certain level of dynamism of the local economy.

Market of sale (for HHs commercializing livestock)

COUNTY Magwi… Owinyki… Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% To community members To buyers from local market who come to buy it in your area To buyers from far away markets who come to buy it in your areas You travel to the nearest market You travel to a far away market in South Sudan You travel to a far away market in another country

A large proportion of livestock keepers report to be satisfied with the price of sale in the place in which they currently sell. However, almost half do not travel to markets where they know they may get a better price due to a lack of economic means for transport. It is clear that animal husbandry is rather dynamic – it is possible that farmers exchange crop for animals (and vice versa) which may be the propelling force towards expanding their scale of operation.

Reason for chosing that market (for HHs selling livestock)

COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% I get the best price at this market I do not have economic means to transport to go other markets Because i sell little and it is not worth to travel I fear the insecurity transporting cattle Not a particular reason I am not aware of prices at other markets so I am not sure it it worth it Poor road conditions make the travel impossible

ECONOMY 53

Production aspects of livestock farming

Reviewing milk production in Magwi is very telling. Even in those communities with a significant number of cattle or goats, milk production is very limited. This is an indication that there are little numbers of animals or that the diet of these animals is very poor. Either way, this shows that Magwi, unlike Torit or Ikotos cannot be considered a pastoral community. Additionally, the nutritional benefits of milk in a HHs diet, as it seen in Hiyalla and Bur (in Torit), are not so evident in Magwi. In fact, even though communities such as Owinykibul and Palwar have a greater share of milk producing animals, milk and meat consumption (as seen on pg. 22) is not better within these communities and hence do not necessarily enjoy better food security conditions as a result of a more nutritious diet that milk and meat tends to give.

Magwi % HHs of animal herders Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Who fetch milk 0% 0% 8% 4% 10% 0% 0% 0% 7% 5% Who sells milk 0% 0% 8% 4% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Average milk production per day 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 5.8 who sell half or most of the milk N/A N/A N/A 0% 10% N/A N/A N/A N/A 3% produced

With regard to the obstacles to livestock farming, poor animal health together with a lack in veterinary services are the most common obstacles, followed by a limited access to water and grazing pasture.

Obstacles to livestock farming Pest and diseases

COUNTY Lack of veterinary services

Magwi… Lack of water Owinykib… Lack of grazing pastures Obbo

Pajok Cattle raiding Lobone Insecurity-Conflict Palwar Iwire Others Omeo no customers Agoro Inability to access communal grazing 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% lands

The problem of pest and diseases affecting livestock in Magwi is evident. 65% of HHs report animal death due to sickness in the past year. Sheep/goats and Birds are the most affected. The death of sheep and goats is a particular problem in Owinykibul where almost 90% of HHs report death.

ECONOMY 54

Magwi % of HHs reporting animal death Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Any death of animal 75% 67% 44% 65% 63% 73% 77% 78% 65% 65%

Sheep/Goats 71% 67% 46% 74% 44% 18% 67% 86% 63% 58%

Ducks/Turkeys/Chickens 29% 25% 38% 13% 28% 64% 25% 14% 38% 29%

Cattle/Cows 0% 0% 8% 4% 16% 9% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Others 0% 0% 8% 4% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Pigs 0% 8% 0% 4% 0% 9% 8% 0% 0% 3%

Many/very many deaths 43% 17% 50% 13% 31% 50% 67% 56% 33% 36%

As of January, almost all animal farming took place within or near the villages. Although nomadic cattle herding is almost non-existent within communities of Magwi, 13% of Agoro’s population do engage in this type of lifestyle.

Magwi Location of most of the animals bred Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Within the village 88% 83% 88% 96% 71% 80% 85% 89% 100% 86% Less than 30 minutes of walk away from the 0% 17% 13% 0% 29% 20% 15% 11% 0% 12% village Several hours of walk away from the village 13% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

With animal farming taking place not far from villages, conflict between livestock keepers and agricultural farmers become more frequent, in addition to dispute over water source for animals.

% of HHs by conflict over resources for Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY farming Centre Water sources used to make animals drink 13% 25% 0% 4% 18% 0% 8% 44% 15% 13% Conflicts between livestock and agricultural 25% 0% 38% 36% 36% 8% 23% 22% 40% 29% production Conflicts with land used for grazing animals 0% 8% 25% 20% 36% 25% 31% 0% 5% 20% None of the above problems 63% 67% 38% 40% 11% 67% 38% 33% 40% 39%

ECONOMY 55

10. ACCESS TO CONSUMER MARKETS, OTHER EXCHANGES and EXPENDITURES

▪ Access to consumer markets is overall better for HHs in Magwi in comparison to Torit and as mentioned in chapter 8, the sale of agricultural production is essential for all HHs. However, it is important not to over emphasize the role of established markets as a large portion of sales occur between community members (see page 52). In this chapter, findings show that in the communities where people report visiting markets less often seems to be more due to the possibility to exchange with community members. However, exchange is still low as people do not produce goods or services that can be of interest to others, a sign of a limited economic specialization and constrained access to markets. Crucially, this restriction has a detrimental effect on production not only because it limits the availability of inputs, but also because it reduces the incentives to increase production to gain cash to spend. In this context, almost one third of the population spend more than 75% of their budget on food, a threshold regarded as sign of economic vulnerability. It is also important to note that the connection between economic vulnerability and food security is not always clear; it is not always the case that less food secure communities spend more on food (and vice versa).

As for other aspects related to livelihood, communities across Magwi have a quite uneven even access to market, however this should not be put down to geographical/accessibility reasons only. Households across payams sell more or less equal amounts (see chapter 9), but some payams such as Owinykibul, Pajok and Omeo are seen here to have less access to markets. It is therefore possible to suggest that there is an amount of production and sale within the community that reduces the needs to visit the closest established market. Overall, access to market is much better in Magwi compared to Torit (see data in brackets).

ACCESS TO (CONSUMER) Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY MARKETS Centre 64% 2 times or more per week 48% 47% 53% 74% 66% 46% 83% 40% 94% (45%) 20% Once every week 33% 26% 27% 16% 22% 22% 9% 30% 6% (24%) 6% Once every 2 weeks 5% 16% 10% 0% 8% 8% 4% 0% 0% (11%) 9% Once per month 14% 11% 10% 10% 4% 16% 4% 30% 0% (15%) 1% Only few times per year 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% (6%) hours to reach the market 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 2

Obstacles in reaching the market are mostly due to distance and lack of transport or the means to pay for transport. Insecurity is negligible, reported by only 1% of the population.

ECONOMY 56

Main obstacles to REACH markets COUNTY Magwi… Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Price for transport is too high Market too far/no time to leave home for such a long time No transport to the market No problem Not sure to find items needed sold in the market Seasonal problems linked to rain/disruption of roads Other problems Insecurity/conflict

When it comes to the obstacles impeding households from buying it is clear that the lack of financial means represents by far the main problem. Still, unavailability of goods seems to be a significant problem too, as it is reported across the county excluding Magwi Centre.

Main obstacles to BUY in the markets COUNTY Magwi… Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%

Not cash to spend in the market Spike in prices and confusion about prices Items not available in the market I am postponing purchases Insecurity

There is a certain amount of exchange/bartering. For example, HHs in Iwire sell slightly more but they have a below than average access to the market yet in this community, exchange happens more often, hence the suggestion of less need to go to the market. However, the overall frequency of exchange is still low indicating another problem at play: people do not produce goods or services that can be of interest to others, possibly because they tend to produce the same products. This is supported by the fact that almost 40% of respondents say that one of the main problems is that others do not have the goods that are wanted.

ECONOMY 57

How often are goods exchanged Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY among neighbours Centre In the last 2 weeks 20% 21% 23% 19% 18% 19% 9% 0% 11% 17% In the last month 5% 26% 20% 13% 4% 14% 22% 30% 11% 14% It rarely happens 60% 26% 47% 55% 56% 51% 39% 50% 42% 48% It never happens 15% 26% 10% 13% 22% 16% 30% 20% 36% 21%

It is important to notice that lack of these wanted goods in the community not only constrains consumption but also has a detrimental effect on production. Along with the unavailability of crucial inputs, in fact, the lack of valuable consumer goods reduces the interest in increasing production as a means to obtain cash to be used for purchases, i.e. it does not stimulate subsistence farmers to increase production to serve the market and buy products.

Obstacles to more exchanges among Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY neighbours Centre I do not have anything to give to them in 33% 10% 35% 38% 56% 50% 44% 29% 54% 44% exchange They do not have what I need 27% 70% 47% 43% 36% 41% 25% 29% 25% 37% Other reasons 40% 20% 18% 19% 8% 9% 31% 43% 21% 19%

The following table shows the most commonly purchased items by categories and over a different period of time, respectively (7 days for food items, 30 days for non-food items and 3 months for services). These figures on goods and services acquired in the recent past seem to suggest significant purchases. Once again, it is noticeable that HHs in Magwi are purchasing less basic food items in comparison to Torit* and are able to spend more on medical services, evidence to suggest a greater economic stability in Magwi.

Main items purchased (% of Magwi HHs) by categories of Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre expenses Cereals (Sorghum, maize, rice, 59% 81% 84% 77% 55% 54% 41% 48% 50% 58% wheat, bread) (71%) Oil, fat and butter 48% 42% 47% 58% 50% 59% 57% 50% 47% 51% All other food items (salt, 43% 32% 40% 39% 32% 43% 35% 40% 25% 36% coffee, tea, etc.) Sugar, honey, sweets 19% 21% 13% 19% 36% 24% 39% 20% 42% 28% Meat, fish, eggs and poultry (beef, goat, pork, sheep, 19% 16% 10% 13% 30% 14% 13% 0% 19% 17% game) Vegetables (pumpkins, okra, 29% 21% 20% 45% 32% 16% 30% 20% 22% 27% green leaves etc) Pulses (Groundnuts, legumes, 14% 26% 13% 23% 10% 3% 9% 10% 6% 12% sesame, beans etc) Milk, yoghurt, cheese 10% 0% 0% 3% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Soap 81% 84% 90% 94% 90% 81% 100% 80% 64% 85% Clothing, shoes 52% 26% 47% 52% 46% 35% 35% 30% 36% 41% Milling and grinding 57% 68% 67% 71% 72% 73% 91% 80% 83% 74% Tobacco and Alcohol 24% 47% 40% 32% 16% 22% 39% 30% 28% 29% 70% Medical expenses, health care 52% 58% 70% 61% 84% 65% 74% 70% 75% (59%) Education, (school 33% 47% 40% 39% 46% 30% 52% 30% 50% 42% fees/uniforms)

ECONOMY 58

Household assets (knives, 43% 37% 23% 32% 32% 24% 39% 50% 28% 32% forks, plates) Agricultural tools, seeds, 33% 37% 43% 32% 24% 30% 39% 30% 31% 32% Hiring labor Celebrations, social events, 29% 37% 23% 19% 28% 19% 35% 30% 19% 25% funerals, weddings Alive animals (cattle, cow, 5% 0% 3% 0% 8% 3% 9% 10% 8% 5% goat/sheep) Construction, house repair, 19% 16% 20% 16% 20% 19% 26% 20% 22% 20% House Rent *data in brackets from Torit Multisector survey also conducted in January 2020

Remembering to take these estimations on expenses with caution, when looking at the amount of money effectively spent it becomes evident that expenses for food represent the bulk of what is purchased by families. In fact, it is estimated that almost one third of the population spend more than 75% for food purchases, an evident indicator of economic vulnerability, especially in Palwar and Agoro. Furthermore, the connection between economic vulnerability and food security is not always clear cut. For example, in Owinykibul, the community that enjoys the best FCS in Magwi, no HH spends more than 75% of expenses on food. However, this is also the case for Omeo, a payam with a low FCS. This should not necessarily be surprising especially in a location where there are many subsistence farmers. On one hand, one could use less money to purchase food as the amount produced is sufficient for need. On the other hand, in a more isolated community where food is scarce, perhaps food items are more difficult to purchase, hence the need for more multi-faceted analyses.

Magwi Monthly average expenses Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre On food 27,175 18,794 26,735 22,292 26,220 21,053 36,791 29,193 36,224 27,379 On non-food items 8,657 11,081 12,678 4,773 7,385 9,571 16,343 17,181 11,991 10,275 On Services 5,269 6,971 12,690 3,658 5,551 9,298 7,519 10,365 10,716 7,778

% of HHs spending more than 40% 0% 19% 43% 31% 24% 28% 0% 29% 27% 75% for food

Looking at the costs for main commodities, it is clear that there is no one pattern that explains the prices. However, the following assumptions can be made: the prices of some commodities in Magwi tend to be higher. Contrary to what would perhaps normally be seen where prices would be higher in more remote areas due to transport requirements, the opposite is occurring with some commodities in Magwi county. This may reflect HHs higher purchasing power in Magwi Centre and traders’ high mark-up. Furthermore, little sorghum is produced in Pajok and even fewer beans in Agoro, Omeo and Iwire hence the need to transport from further afield and the subsequent higher prices. Overall, soap is not consistent with this finding perhaps due to its overall ease in transportation. This finding shows that it is essential to keep in mind that market surveys in Magwi Centre alone may not reflect values of the entire county.

Costs for main local and Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY imported commodities Centre Sugar (1 mug, 0.5 Kg) 169 178 188 142 166 171 145 183 208 172 Sorghum (1 Kg) 178 156 176 140 109 179 127 151 154 148 Beans (1 mug, 0.5 Kg) 206 191 195 122 124 136 171 163 190 160 Soap (1 piece -- generally sold 222 312 189 201 200 192 262 196 184 211 at the market)

ECONOMY 59

11. PRODUCTIVE ASSETS, ENERGY and NON-FOOD ITEMS The review of housing arrangements shows that in Magwi only 15% of the population is not a home owner. However, almost 1/3 of homes require substantial improvement to be deemed a safe and stable shelter; this is more than half of homes in Agoro. Almost 1/3 of the population do not have a kitchen area and therefore cook in the same room as they sleep, a practice that can have detrimental effects on the health of HH members.

Magwi Housing conditions Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Owned house 90% 84% 83% 84% 76% 92% 91% 100% 75% 84% Hosted 0% 5% 7% 13% 18% 3% 0% 0% 6% 7% Renting or working to stay 10% 11% 10% 3% 6% 5% 9% 0% 19% 9%

Safe shelter (may need small 48% 63% 68% 67% 72% 68% 65% 90% 81% 69% repairs) Unsafe no stable 52% 37% 32% 33% 28% 32% 35% 10% 19% 31% Cooking in the sleeping/living 65% 37% 33% 45% 22% 14% 29% 30% 11% 29% room

A significant share of families, around half of the entire population, have a fairly wide set of utensils – notice the widespread possession of water containers, of particular importance given its contribution to personal hygiene.

Magwi % of HHs with utensils Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Beds 38% 42% 57% 42% 75% 59% 65% 22% 69% 57% Blankets 50% 50% 60% 58% 67% 54% 61% 60% 68% 60% Water containers 86% 79% 93% 93% 98% 89% 91% 100% 100% 93% Stove/Kanun 81% 89% 90% 90% 96% 86% 91% 80% 97% 91% Sponge mattress 38% 63% 63% 58% 71% 54% 70% 40% 82% 63% Tables/Chairs 43% 58% 50% 39% 65% 64% 74% 40% 75% 59%

With regard to productive goods, generally called assets, there is widespread possession of key instruments such as engine run grinding machines. In terms of more advanced agricultural tools, there is a total absence of tractors (data not shown) and a rather uneven presence of ox-ploughs within Magwi.

% of HHs with productive Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY assets Centre Spade/Axe 48% 58% 59% 77% 75% 39% 77% 30% 57% 61% Cell phone 43% 58% 53% 17% 57% 38% 57% 60% 64% 49% Engine-run grinding machine 20% 32% 47% 39% 64% 65% 57% 60% 69% 53% less than 30 minutes away Grain grinding tool 48% 28% 39% 45% 58% 42% 83% 70% 71% 54% Fishing kit 0% 11% 13% 16% 6% 22% 4% 30% 3% 11% Bicycle 20% 26% 21% 13% 10% 25% 32% 10% 31% 21% Cash/Saving 25% 26% 10% 30% 25% 19% 30% 20% 37% 25% Motorcycle/vehicle 10% 5% 10% 7% 26% 11% 39% 10% 22% 17% Wheelbarrow 0% 16% 13% 10% 4% 8% 9% 10% 11% 9% Electricity 0% 5% 0% 0% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3% Generator 5% 16% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 11% 4% Ox-plough 0% 0% 3% 6% 20% 11% 13% 0% 6% 9% Sewing machine 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3% 9% 10% 0% 2%

ECONOMY 60

12. HUMANITARIAN & DEVELOPMENT AID The review of the distribution and composition of the humanitarian support shows first and foremost the lesser amount of support channelled to Owinykibul, Palwar and Iwire. The comparatively lesser support to this latter payam, including limited nutritional services is particularly unfortunate given its precarious food security conditions.

Humanitarian assistance over last year COUNTY Magwi… Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% Agricultural inputs i.e. seeds and or tools Other support Health /medicines Nutrition (e.g. Blanket supplementary feeding, etc) Food in the Schools Veterinary service Food distribution or food in exchange for work Non Food Items (kitchen sets, blankets, Khanga) Cash and or cash in exchange for work Advise from extension service

Unequal coverage is also visible with reference to technical training programs. However, about 50% of the population benefit from more structured types of training such as accelerated education, which supports not only the direct beneficiary but also the general upgrade of the local economy.

Technical and Vocational Education and Training over the last year COUNTY Magwi… Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Other practical training Other adult education Other training provided by NGO FFS (Farmer Field School) training VSLA (Village Saving and Loan Association) training Accelerated education Income-generation/entrepreneurship training One-year vocational training

Unfortunately, the level of communication with the community on beneficiary selection seems quite poor. Without this clear communication, humanitarian support can be the source of conflict within a community. It is subsequently essential that the sector improves in this.

Magwi Communication and transparency Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre %HHs with clear knowledge over the criteria 10% 16% 21% 16% 20% 29% 22% 10% 17% 19% applied for the selection of beneficiaries

ECONOMY 61

PEACE and PARTECIPATION

This section covers the subject of conflict resolution and social cohesion. In particular, it reviews disputes over natural resources (chapter 13), hazards and safety (chapter 14), community participation and local governance (chapter 15) and human dislocation and migration (chapter 16).

13. NATURAL RESOURCES RELATED DISPUTES More than 1/3 of Magwi’s population reports conflicts over water and land. This percentage almost doubles in Owinykibul, followed by Iwire and Lobone –places to watch out for more carefully.

Magwi Conflicts over water and land Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre % of HHs aware of conflicts 29% 26% 43% 32% 42% 27% 39% 60% 33% 36% over water and land # of disputes during the last 3 2.0 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.7 months

Control over water is by far the most common source of disputes, whether at the irrigation system level or for fetching water from boreholes and is a rather prominent issue in Owinykibul. Land boundary conflicts comes second to disputes over water and is the dominant issue in Agoro alongside land grabbing. Particular issues related to livestock are very noticeable in Iwire where livestock grazing, cattle route problems and animal raiding make up 50% of the source of disputes in the payam.

Source of disputes COUNTY Magwi… Owinyki… Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Use of water source Land boundary conflicts Livestock grazing on crops Land grabbing and selling Stealing of crops and livestock Eviction from farm land and wetlands Bush burning Conflict involving women Land inheritance conflicts Cattle routes related Animal raiding crops Cutting of trees Other

In most cases it is not clear to the population who profited from the source of conflict, confirming the limited scope of the conflicts. In Agoro there are more incidences of intercommunal conflict with unknown perpetrators while in Lobone some conflicts are occurring with known persons outside of the community.

Groups reportedly fighting Magwi (who benefited from the Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre dispute) Not sure who profited 83% 60% 46% 50% 71% 90% 56% 100% 75% 68% Some members of our village 17% 40% 54% 80% 33% 20% 44% 0% 33% 38% Some unknown people from 17% 20% 8% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 8% 5% other villages Some important well-known 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% person from another village

ECONOMY 62

The analysis of communities’ capacity to solve problems reveals that in comparison with other payams, Iwire has a more successful system of conflict management, whereas in Palwar and Agoro, the success rate is less where 50% of the community report no conflict resolution mechanism at all.

Conflict Resolution performance COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Most of the problem were addressed Some problems were addressed Not at all, none were addressed

Overall, there is a great mix of opinion when looking to the likelihood of future conflict in Magwi. However, quite reassuringly, 85% of HHs do not believe that conflict is more likely to increase.

% of HHs by likelihood of Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY increase of conflicts Centre Less likely 33% 25% 38% 50% 55% 33% 33% 50% 8% 38% More or less the same likely 33% 50% 23% 30% 40% 67% 56% 50% 75% 46% More likely 33% 25% 38% 20% 5% 0% 11% 0% 17% 16%

Commonly, high level county administrator addresses disputes yet traditional leaders are also very often called upon to resolve conflict.

% of HHs by type of leader who Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY helps solving disputes Centre High level administrative government (member of county 50% 60% 77% 50% 81% 70% 56% 83% 92% 72% administration) Sub chief - Mukungu 50% 60% 38% 20% 71% 60% 33% 50% 67% 52% Nyampara 33% 60% 31% 30% 24% 50% 44% 67% 50% 39% Boma chief 17% 40% 31% 10% 10% 50% 11% 17% 33% 23% Head Chief 0% 20% 8% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 33% 9% Ancestral Headman - Landlord 0% 20% 8% 0% 0% 10% 11% 0% 0% 4% Others 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

ECONOMY 63

14. SAFETY and CRIMES

It is important to consider the level of disruption that witnessed Magwi. Pajok was the place most affected by it.

Clashes between organized Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY bodies Centre % of HHs who report that clashes 48% 58% 53% 61% 48% 69% 39% 30% 56% 54% occurred in their village

Though there seems to be no report of major political conflicts, reported violent crimes are at significantly prominent levels throughout the county. In particular: i) crime against property are recurrent across Magwi – see theft and breaking into houses ii) very concerningly, murder is the second most reported crime in the county and the most reported crime in Pajok. Pajok also witnesses stark numbers in abduction and the burning down of houses. In fact, Pajok has by far the most reported crimes within Magwi county. Although, Owinykibul is the payam where more natural resource disputes are reported (chapter 13), HHs within this community report the least number of hazards and crimes.

Types of hazard and crimes experienced in the last year COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% 500% Theft Murder House breaking Verbal threat Physical attack/assault Sexual assault or rape Serious physical harm to child Abduction or disappearance of family member Burned house Violation of the right to freedom of movement or expression Theft of livestock Land grabbing/dispossession Poisoning of family member

Interestingly, however, it is unanimously reported that across Magwi that the situation was worse a year ago. However, in line with what is reported above, a small yet significant 14% of the population in Pajok do feel that the situation is getting worse in their payam.

HHs’ opinion over the overall Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY trend on hazards Centre Before it was worse 100% 100% 96% 100% 98% 86% 100% 100% 100% 97% It is getting worse in the last 0% 0% 4% 0% 2% 14% 0% 0% 0% 3% period

ECONOMY 64

Pajok is also the community that reports more fragile relationships between host community and IDPs, whereas all other HHs in Magwi almost unanimously, good relations with newcomers. Tensions in Pajok are reported to be caused by the limited or discriminatory access to basic goods and humanitarian assistance (data not shown).

Cause of tension between host Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY community and returnees/IDPs Centre Good, no tensions or very little 95% 95% 93% 100% 90% 84% 96% 70% 94% 92% Not enough information 5% 5% 0% 0% 6% 3% 0% 30% 0% 4% Fragile, there are some 0% 0% 3% 0% 2% 11% 4% 0% 6% 4% significant tensions Bad, there are serious tensions 0% 0% 3% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1%

15. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION and LOCAL GOVERNANCE

• Mutual help is a key dynamic in a context like South Sudan. In Magwi, there is a noticeable level of reciprocal support and habit of community contribution. 4/5 of the population are associated in groups, the main reason given being for mutual help, although this figure is much less in communities that report high levels of crimes and hazards (chapter 14). However, only 50% of HHs are actively engaged in community work. Traditional leaders, as is common knowledge for South Sudan, undertake an active role in coordinating community work and (although now to a lesser extent) in resolving disputes (chapter 7 and 13). On the whole, HHs have greater interaction with local leaders than official government authorities while less than 1 in 10 HHs are involved in official public bodies.

▪ Exchange of gifts is common practice in Magwi where 45% of families do so, especially in Omeo. As mentioned in chapter 8, ‘gifts’ can be seen as a temporary loan in cases of need as they are very often reciprocated at a later date. Exchange of gifts among community members COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes, it occurred recently Yes, some time ago occurred the last time It occurs very seldom No, it almost never occurs

More than 80% of the population is associated in a group in Magwi, 1.5 times greater HH association compared to Torit. When asked the important factors holding the group together besides the reported want to help each other, sharing of land and assets are also important factors. Interestingly, in Pajok where crime levels are exceptionally high, HHs are far less associated in groups.

ECONOMY 65

Membership in association and Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY reason holding the group Centre % of HHs associated in self- 76% 84% 87% 100% 86% 59% 96% 70% 89% 84% help/income generation groups Mutual Help 81% 93% 76% 94% 90% 83% 90% 71% 88% 87% Share of inputs, tools, seeds 81% 73% 76% 77% 81% 52% 81% 57% 75% 75% Sharing of land 69% 73% 60% 55% 81% 65% 81% 100% 69% 70% Living close to one another 69% 67% 64% 58% 36% 57% 62% 86% 53% 56% Family/personal relationships 31% 20% 40% 19% 19% 22% 10% 14% 22% 22% Other reasons 0% 7% 0% 0% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Participation in community work is done by half of the population, with exception of Pajok and Iwire, the latter also being a community with comparatively high levels of crime. Traditional leaders have a key role in the coordination of community works.

Participation to community works Magwi during the last 12 months and Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre leadership of process % of HHs who contributed to 55% 56% 33% 58% 59% 31% 52% 60% 56% 50% community work Sub chief - Mukungu 82% 70% 80% 61% 45% 36% 50% 50% 55% 57% Boma chief 55% 60% 50% 33% 34% 91% 58% 83% 55% 52% Nyampara 55% 50% 40% 39% 28% 27% 50% 67% 40% 40% Head Chief 27% 10% 0% 6% 7% 9% 25% 0% 20% 12% Ancestral Headman - Landlord 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 0% 3% Others 0% 10% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2% Teachers 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 2% Religious leader 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

In kind or monetary contributions to community activities is also common, though much less so in Pajok. HHs in Owinykibul however are much more likely to contribute in kind or in monetary form for community activities. Overall, contribution to community activity is much more common in Magwi than in Torit (38% of HHs in Torit report never contributing in kind or monetarily to community activity, in Magwi this figure stands at 22%).

Contribution (in kind or monetary) to community activity COUNTY Magwi… Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes, it occurred recently Yes, some time ago occurred the last time It occurs very seldom No, it almost never occurs

ECONOMY 66

Community meetings occur frequently and involve a considerable section of the population; 95% of HHs report to have attended meetings (data not shown). Concerns related to education, water and agriculture are by far the most discussed issues in all communities. This is unsurprising as these are among the top issues that communities would most like the government to address (chapter 2).

Call of public meeting and issues Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY discussed Centre % of HHs aware of public meeting in 75% 63% 55% 48% 60% 59% 57% 60% 58% 59% the last 3 months

Education 73% 75% 81% 73% 60% 77% 92% 83% 90% 77%

Water 93% 75% 81% 93% 63% 64% 69% 83% 76% 75% Agriculture / farming inputs / Seeds 73% 58% 81% 60% 73% 50% 69% 33% 62% 65% Security 53% 17% 25% 0% 20% 45% 23% 17% 14% 25% Employment 40% 42% 31% 7% 7% 23% 46% 17% 24% 24% Land issues 7% 33% 6% 20% 20% 23% 31% 17% 19% 19% Cattle issues 7% 8% 25% 33% 23% 0% 0% 17% 14% 15% Others 7% 17% 0% 0% 7% 27% 0% 17% 5% 9%

As expected, local leaders play an important role in leading community meetings but so do NGOs and, notably, government officials. It is worth noticing that attendance rate is similar regardless of who calls for meeting (data not shown).

Who called for the community meeting COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% Local clan leader NGO Government official Other person Religious leader

The role of administrative authority is confirmed to be minor compared to traditional small-scale government. People interact mainly with local leaders, being Nyampara or Mukungu or sector leaders, the latter being historically responsible for the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

ECONOMY 67

Interaction with local leaders over the last three months COUNTY Nyampara or Mukungu Magwi Centre Owinykibul Opinion leader Obbo Sector leader Pajok Lobone Chairman of informal farmer Palwar groups Iwire Administrative authority Omeo Chairman of farmer groups Agoro supported by NGO 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Finally, by looking at the direct participation of community members in the different types and levels of the government, there is little involvement in public bodies, especially in administrative authorities. These findings are very similar to those of Torit.

Direct participation of HH's member in government or public/community bodies

COUNTY Magwi Centre Owinykibul Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% No particular role Teacher Nyampara or Mukungu Sector leader Landlord Administrative authority Chairman or committee member of informal farmer group Opinion leader Chairman of committee member of a formal farmer group supported by NGO

ECONOMY 68

16. MIGRATION and IDPs

▪ The movement of people throughout Magwi seems to describe a situation of “stabilization”. Within the last year, the inflow of people reaches around 18,000, while the outflow numbers are around 8,400. There is great reason to believe that greater stability in security and economic conditions are incentivizing families to relocate or return to Magwi, especially from refugee camps abroad. Stabilization is also apparent when reviewing the reasons for people’s departure where most of those leaving do so out of a desire. However, the extent of improvement should be viewed cautiously as 37% still report a lack of security or hunger as the reason for leaving. Furthermore, findings also suggest that those moving into Magwi do so on a more permanent basis.

% and # of HHs by migration Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY status Centre Natives residents (continuously 95% 63% 67% 87% 54% 78% 70% 80% 78% 73% since birth) Returnees (natives forced to 5% 16% 20% 6% 8% 19% 13% 0% 8% 11% leave temporarily) IDP/Relocated 0% 21% 13% 6% 38% 3% 17% 20% 14% 16%

Returnees/IDPs/relocated more 0% 37% 27% 10% 31% 8% 25% 20% 22% 20% than 12 months ago Returned /relocated over the last 12 months: IDP/Returnee 5% 0% 7% 3% 15% 14% 5% 0% 0% 7% HHs

# of HHs IDP/Returnee* (in the 45 0 158 48 578 242 102 0 0 1,192 last 12 months) # of IDP/Returnee people** (in 270 0 948 290 3,467 1,451 614 0 0 7,152 the last 12 months) *based on a total population of 17,248 HHs (RRC Magwi). Figures are based on estimations, and should not be taken as exact or verified **Based on the assumption of 6 people per HHs, Figures are based on estimations, and should not be taken as exact or verified

The number of entire households of IDPs/Returnees16 (entire families who have returned to their place of origin, were displaced, or simply chose to relocate over the last 12 months) is estimated to be roughly 1,200 households (7,400 people), mostly located in Lobone (the closest payam to the Ugandan border) – the other payams are largely composed of native residents who have spent their entire life in their communities. On the whole most people who moved into Magwi county arrived several years ago however this is not the case in Agoro and Pajok. These are all possible signs of improvement in conditions in Magwi in the last year encouraging migration to/back to the county.

It is important to notice that among those who moved to Magwi in the last year a significant share reported to be coming from “other countries or refugee camps”, most likely from the camps located in Uganda. This proportion is much greater than in Torit as result of Magwi’s close proximity to the Ugandan border.

16 This figure is different from the total number of IDP/Returnee people, which is the combination of IDP/Returnee who settled as an entire independent household (shown here) and IDP/Returnee who joined local families (shown in the next pages).

ECONOMY 69

Origins of Returnees and IDPs - historic vs recent trend returned more than 1 year ago returned less than 1 year ago IDP (relocated/displaced) more than 1 year ago IDP (relocated/displaced) less than 1 year ago 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% In the same county In a very far way place, but still from the same country In a community outside the county, 2 or 3 days of walk In another country or in a refugee camp

Moreover, confirming the overall improvement of conditions, 65% of entire households of IDPs/Returnees that returned or relocated for reasons other than conflicts and hunger.

Reason for relocating (Returnees and IDPs)

COUNTY

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Marriage Avoiding insecurity Hunger in the previous place of living Seeking better economic opportunity Avoiding direct conflicts/clashes Accessing better services like school, health care

It is important to emphasize that a significant share of recent returnees and IDPs have not completed their journey or have not still decided whether to settle or return to their previous place.

Intention to relocate further in the next months (Retournees/IDPs)

COUNTY

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No, I have the intention to stay here For the time being I do not know Yes, I think / hope to go back from where I came Yes, I expect to go back and come again here multiple times

The number of individual IDPs/Returnees (people who joined local families over the last 12 months as they were displaced from their former location, because they returned to their place of origin, or simply because they chose to relocate) is estimated to be approximately of 11,000, hosted by around 4,600 local families. This may very likely represent an overestimation due to a habit to report the presence of IDPs to seek support (aid fatigue).

Magwi % of HHs Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Hosting IDPs (people arrived in 19% 26% 40% 35% 20% 24% 22% 40% 25% 27% the last 12 months) # of HHs hosting IDPs 180 146 948 531 790 435 438 372 800 4,640 average # of IDPs per hosting 4 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 HH total # of IDPs hosted by local 629 205 2,291 965 1,316 1,354 877 836 2,400 10,873 HH

ECONOMY 70

Overall, the inflow of people into Magwi reaches about 18,000 (almost 7,100 individuals with their entire household and 11,000 individuals hosted in families) and is much less compared to the 33,000 individuals migrating to Torit.

Moreover, a large section of individual IDPs/Returnees being hosted by local families relocate from close-by areas, conceivably within the county, many of whom may have chosen to move out of their desire. Finally, 1/4 of these people come from another country or from a refugee camp.

Place of origin of Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY IDPs/Returnees people Centre The same county 50% 100% 25% 55% 22% 0% 80% 50% 33% 40% Another country or in a 0% 0% 25% 18% 11% 56% 20% 50% 33% 25% refugee camp A community outside the 25% 0% 25% 9% 44% 11% 0% 0% 22% 18% county, 2 or 3 days of walk A very far way place, but still 25% 0% 17% 18% 22% 22% 0% 0% 11% 15% from the same country Is a person from the same village who moved away and 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 3% just recently came back

Shifting the focus of the analysis to the outflow of people occurred over the last 12 months, 8,400 people left Magwi.

Magwi % of HHs Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre whose members have migrated 14% 16% 27% 19% 20% 24% 9% 0% 11% 18% in the last 12 months Average % of members who left 39% 67% 38% 26% 29% 37% 25% 0% 35% 34%

Average # of family members 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 0 4 3 who left Total members who migrated 539 307 1,390 608 2,082 1,414 292 0 1,244 8,395

There is also some indication of stabilization when reviewing the reasons for people’s departure. More than half of those leaving do so out of desire. However, lack of security or hunger is still reported by 37% of people. Agoro deserves particular attention, for all people departing seems to be doing so because of a lack of security. Also important to note, on closer analysis of ‘other reasons’, the vast majority of HHs report a lack of education for the reason of leaving. On a more positive side, in Owinykibul, the payam that enjoys acceptable food security conditions, there is no report of departure.

ECONOMY 71

Reason for migrating (leaving) to another area COUNTY Magwi… Obbo Pajok Lobone Palwar Iwire Omeo Agoro

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Family reasons Lack of security Other reasons Hunger Lack of employment

With regard to the refugees, families claim that around 40% of the population has left since the crisis of 2016.

% of HHs that left for the refugee camps 80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul Magwi COUNTY Centre

57% of families believe that half, if not more, of refugees came back.

Share of the population that Magwi Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY returned Centre Most of the them 14% 21% 23% 13% 16% 8% 9% 11% 11% 14% Many of them, the majority 14% 0% 7% 13% 6% 11% 13% 22% 14% 10% Half of them 43% 42% 33% 29% 42% 22% 30% 22% 31% 33% Less than half of them 19% 16% 13% 23% 12% 35% 13% 22% 25% 20% Even less, very few 10% 21% 23% 23% 24% 24% 35% 22% 19% 23%

Equally important, is that the population believes the majority of those who returned, returned permanently. This is a greatly positive sign of the improved conditions in Magwi since 2016.

Share of the population that Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul Magwi Centre returned but later left again Most of the them 5% 11% 13% 3% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0% Many of them, the majority 10% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 6% Half of them 29% 37% 27% 19% 24% 25% 22% 22% 26% Less than half of them 24% 21% 20% 35% 33% 31% 22% 44% 34% Even less, very few 33% 32% 37% 42% 39% 36% 52% 33% 34%

ECONOMY 72

AVSI Foundation P.O. Box 373 Juba Raha - Juba - South Sudan [email protected]

20158 Milano — Via Legnone, 4 — Italy Tel + 39 02 6749881 Fax +39 0267490056 [email protected]

ECONOMY 73