2020 Magwi Multi-Sector Household Survey Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2020 Magwi 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 Sudan 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 Equatoria 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 South Sudan, 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 Torit. 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 Eastern Equatoria. 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 Magwi county only one-third of adults has no experience of schooling, as compared to two-thirds in Torit county. 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.