2019 Torit Multi-Sector Household Survey Report
February 2019
Contents RECENT OVERALL TRENDS and BASIC RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4 BACKGROUND ...... 6 TORIT DASHBOARD ...... 7 COMMUNITY CONSOLE ...... 10 I. PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY and SCOPE ...... 11 PEOPLE WELFARE ...... 15 1. LIVELIHOOD ...... 15 2. MAIN PROBLEMS and RESILIENCE (COPING CAPACITY) ...... 17 3. FOOD SECURITY...... 19 4. HEALTH ...... 22 5. HYGIENE ...... 25 6. EDUCATION ...... 26 7. PROTECTION and GENDER ...... 28 ECONOMY ...... 33 8. AGRICULTURE...... 33 9. LIVESTOCK FARMING ...... 44 10. ACCESS TO CONSUMER MARKETS, OTHER EXCHANGES and EXPENDITURES ...... 47 11. PRODUCTIVE ASSETS, ENERGY and NON-FOOD ITEMS ...... 50 12. HUMANITARIAN & DEVELOPMENT AID ...... 51 PEACE and PARTECIPATION ...... 54 13. NATURAL RESOURCES RELATED DISPUTES ...... 54 14. SAFETY and CRIMES ...... 56 15. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION and LOCAL GOVERNANCE ...... 57 16. MIGRATION and IDPs ...... 60 APPENDIX 1 – Poverty profiling ...... 63
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
This report was made possible thanks to the kind contribution of the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation and the Food Agency Organization
Author: Bruno Nazim Baroni (AVSI Foundation Head of Monitoring and Quality Assurance)
with the support of
Luca Scarpa (AVSI Foundation Country Representative)
Kuti Elizabeth and Papa John Martin (survey managers and lead enumerators)
AVSI Foundation, South Sudan
Acronyms
ASARECA Association on Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa CIALCA Consortium for Improving Agriculture-based Livelihoods in Central Africa CRM Crude Mortality Rate FCS Food Consumption Score FSNMS Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring System HHS Household Hunger Scale HHs Households IDPs Internally Displaced Peoples IPC Integrated Phase Food Security Classification IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding MICS Multi Indicator Cluster Survey NFI Non-Food Item PPS Probability proportional to population - RRC (Relief and Rehabilitation Commission)
ECONOMY 4
RECENT OVERALL TRENDS and BASIC RECOMMENDATIONS
At the beginning of February 2019, the overall food security condition of Torit’s families classified as one of a mild crisis (IPC phase 3). Overall, 24% of households were in a condition of “moderate hunger” as for the Household Hunger Scale (HHS); Likewise, the number of meals averagely consumed daily was around 2.7. Much more alarmingly, 21% of households reported a “poor” Food consumption Score (FCS), and 37% a “borderline” FCS, a result that suggests an unbalanced diet, poor in nutritious food. Together, these figures describe a situation of vulnerable food security conditions: even right after harvest season around one-fifth of families in Torit County had to deal with food sacristy, while only half of the population had access to a varied and nutrient diet.
Looking at the food conditions at the payam level (sub-county), it is worth noticing that three out of the nine payams comprising Torit county face rather dire conditions, which suggest an emergency situation: in Lowoi, Ifwotu and Imurok around 40% of families are in a condition of poor Food Consumption Score (FCS). Once again, the most alarming aspect it is the fact that going forward into the lean season the outlook for those communities is expected to worsen.
With regard to the overall context, compared to one year ago, improved security conditions are reported unanimously across Torit – albeit crime against property continues to affect most communities, and each community faces significant and entrenched problems. In particular, In Hiyalla and Bur thefts of livestock is a real concern, Lowoi and Kudo are afflicted by the abduction of children, in Himodonge the unregulated cutting of trees, which the county administration is not attempting to mitigate, is a major concern. In Ifwotu crimes are common also as a result of quarrels related to land property rights, and in Imurok insecurity still induces people to leave. However, compared to one year before, improved security conditions are unanimously reported. Human dislocation is minimal, as the number of people leaving Torit county in 2018 matched the number of people moving in; a portion of these influx of people, around 2500 individuals, was comprised by returnees who previously lived in refugee camps abroad.
Human displacement, with the partial exception of Imurok, is also low, the majority of people arriving to Torit being from nearby communities relocating voluntary. Still, although an estimated 2,500 returnees have come back from refugee camps during 2018, there is still a considerable portion of families who report having relatives in refugee camps, a sign that more is needed for a full return to “normality”.
Overall, Torit county needs to receive greater and more adequate support. The use of tractors or ox- ploughs should obviously be fostered, to make it available to the 99% of the population who do not currently use them. The inadequate humanitarian support, conversely, is revealed by the marked gap existing between the town and its neighboring communities in terms of access to social services, mainly education and healthcare. The level of insecurity that had affected this county in 2016/2017 certainly contributed greatly to this outcome. The improvement of security conditions should be regarded as an opportunity to sophisticate development-oriented projects and extending humanitarian assistance to communities outside Torit Town, with a special attention to sustaining the recovery of Ifwotu.
ECONOMY 5
BACKGROUND
Torit County shows sign of an incipient urban setting, whereby market-related dynamics are discernible (farmers investing in agricultural inputs or hiring casual workers are markedly well off) and informal safety nets, common in the villages, play a smaller role (families with fewer income sources, like those with elderly members or single-parent households, are distinctly worse off). Even the requests coming from families – better education, peace promotion and improved health services – mirrors the expectations of urban settlers. Notwithstanding, such dynamics are still incipient and feeble, as witnessed by the fact that only half of the population obtains cash as a result of their occupation, while families that resort to bartering seem to do better than those selling to the market. The same is suggested by the little sensibility to problems related to the protection of women and children.
Overall, Torit can be regarded as a stratified community, where few well-off farmers engaged in commercial farming live side by side with many worse-off smallholder farmers (approximately 50% of farmers cultivates less than 1 hectare of land), that are likely to have no access to common land and/or have no animals to heard. Likewise, with farmer groups supported with basic agricultural inputs (largely in a state of food insecurity) in Torit there are farmers engaged in seed selection with the support of extension workers (seed multiplication groups, whose members are almost invariably food secure).
At the payam level, marked differences are discernible too as a result of the combination of economic specialization and climatic differences. In the South, Himodonge and Iyire are specialized in agriculture, which occupies more than 90% of the population, who sells large shares of their produce in nearby Magwi. Conversely, to the North-East, in Hiyalla and Bur, one-third of families practice animal farming and/or fishing, the bartering of food for animal products is common, and the main trade is with Torit Town through the sales of livestock. In these areas, such as Kudo, the occurrence of both agriculture and animal farming foster a certain dynamism in the local economy, whereby community members find it easy and convenient to trade, increasing incentives to expand production. Finally, close to Torit Town, in Ifwotu and Imurok, where insecurity disrupted most economic activities in 2016/2017, one-fourth of families rely on the exploitation of wood and production of charcoal.
Unfortunately, humanitarian assistance shows patent gaps, especially distressing considering that Torit Town is the fifth urban settlement of South Sudan. For instance, only 1% of people in town report to be attending formal vocational training (sustained by AVSI with funding from the Italian Episcopal Church); across the county, not even 1% of farmers use ox-ploughs or tractors. Likewise, the coverage of healthcare and education, which is fairly good in town, is negligible in surrounding areas. Also, worryingly, there is a lack of prioritization (targeting) of support: the people of Torit Town, who are the least engaged in farming and show the best food security conditions, receive proportionally the highest share of agriculture and nutrition support. Conversely, the most food insecure areas receive proportionally less nutritional support, while the area with the best agronomic conditions and most engaged in market-oriented farming, Iyire, receives the smallest agricultural support. Finally, Ifwotu, where the wounds of fighting are still discernable, deserves special attention and support, especially in terms of social services.
ECONOMY 6
DASHBOARD
PEOPLE WELFARE LIVELIHOOD and RESILIENCE (Economic diversification) 60% of HHs derives its main source of living from the production and/or sale of staple cereals (Economic specialization) 32% of HHs obtains some cash in return for its work (Economic vulnerability) 47% of HHs spend more than 75% of its budget on food purchases (Key contributing factor) 13% of HHs reported lack of rains as one of the main problems in the last 3 months (Recent economic trend) 28% of HHs reports improvement in family’s income over the last year (Coping strategies) 18% of HHs has recently adopted crisis livelihood coping strategies – depleting assets to meet needs. (Resilience) 7% of HHs has already exhausted some livelihood coping strategies
FOOD SECURITY (Access to food among children) 2.7 meals are consumed daily by children below 5 years not breastfeeding (Access to food) 26% of HHs is in a state of moderate or severe hunger (Access to nutrient diet) 21% of HHs has a poor Food Consumption Score (FCS) (Access to nutrient diet) 40% of HHs has a poor FCS in the most food insecure communities, Ifwotu, Imurok and Lowoi (Access to vegetal nutrient-rich food) 1.2 times per week legumes/nuts are consumed (Access to animal nutrient-rich food) 1.2 times per week meat/fish is consumed (Access to animal nutrient-rich food) 1.2 times per week milk is consumed
HEALTH (Mortality) 2.4 Crude Mortality Rate (Maternal care) 49% of mothers giving birth in the last 3 years had visited a health facility in the first trimester of pregnancy (Infant nutrition) 86% of 0-23.9 months babies not born in healthcare were initiated breastfeeding immediately after birth (Vaccination) 79% of under 3-year old babies got vaccinated
HYGIENE (Access to water) 30% of HHs must walk more than one hour to fetch water (Access to safe drinking water) 4% of HHs uses surface water (ponds) as source of drinking water (during rainy season) (Hygiene practices)57% of HHs use soap (Sanitation practices) 20% of HHs uses latrines to defecate
EDUCATION (Adult literacy) 60% of the adult population speaks (some) English (School accessibility) 66% of HHs live less than 30-minute away (by walk) from a school (School enrolment among children) 63% of children between 4 and 9 years of age attend/ed at any time school (School enrolment among adolescents) 71% of adolescents between 10 and 18 years of age attend/ed at any time school (School absenteeism) 17% of HHs reports that children returned home from schools in the last term due to lack of teachers (Reading skills) 65% of pupils enrolled in P4 or higher classes can read basic English sentences (Mathematical skills) 9% of pupils enrolled in P4 or higher classes can perform simple additions
PROTECTION (Disability/Vulnerability) 14% of HHs have among their members one disabled person in need of assistance (Sexual abuses on minors) 2% of HHs reports that one of their 6 to 17 years old child was sexually abused in the last year (GBV) 19% of HHs reports of threats specific to women; 7% of HHS reports threat of sexually abuse (rape or sexual assault) (Referral path) 26% of HHs reports to police or community leaders about cases of child abuse or violence (Mental distress) 26% of HHs reports that one of their members felt so troubled that sought help repeatedly in the last year
ECONOMY 7
ECONOMY AGRICULTURE (Proxy of intensive/extensive agriculture) 30% of HHs cultivates land located less than 15 minutes away from home (Actual capacity) 77% of HHs uses all the plots of land owned (Medium/large scale farming) 29% of HHs cultivates communal land/community gardens (Smallholders) 39% of HHs cultivates less than 1 Ha of private land and is not engaged in communal farming (Expansion of cultivated land) 38% of HHs reports cultivating more land compared to the previous year (Stable access to water) 29% of HHs uses different water source depending on season (Maintenance/investment on water) 51% of HHs has a malfunctioning borehole that is closer compared to the one used (Farming of vegetable)52% of HHs cultivate vegetables. (Crop variety) 12% of HHs cultivate only one crop; 22% cultivate two types of crop only (Crop most important for livelihood) 63% of HHs report sorghum, 19% maize,7% of g-nuts seeds (Membership in a farmer group supported by NGO) 21% of HHs is a member of farmer group supported by NGO (Agronomic skills) 81% of HHs is familiar with (some) planting, farming and soil & water conservation practices (Seed selection) 63% of HHs is aware of the distinction between regular and prime seeds (Seed market) 53% of HHs purchased (some) seeds (Agriculture tool market) 10% of HHs reports not buying any tool (using only self-produced tools) (Casual labour market) 12% of HHs hired casual laborers (Capital market) 13% of HHs reports being capable of borrowing a conspicuous amount of money ($200) (Market orientation of communal farmers) 86% of HHs engaged in communal farming uses its produce for consumption (Market orientation of communal farmers2) 79% of HHs engaged in communal farming uses its produce for sale (Market orientation of communal farmers3) famers engaged in communal farmers sell 14.6% of their produce (Market orientation of farmers) the average farmer sells 11.4% of their produce
LIVESTOCK FARMING (Scope of livestock farming) 50% of HHs engages in animal husbandry, 19% raises cattle and 32% sheep/goats (Collective livestock farming) 71% of HHs raising livestock does so collectively in so called Kraals (Market orientation of livestock farming)28% of HHs reports raising livestock for commercial purposes (Productive orientation of livestock farming) 2% of HHs reports raising livestock for working purposes (Trend in sales of livestock) 26% of HHs reports having sold more livestock compared to the previous year (Extension services) 42% of HHs laments the lack of veterinary services as the main obstacle to livestock farming (Animal welfare) 80% of HHs reports pest and disease as the main obstacle to livestock farming (Cattle raiding) 14% of HHs reports incidents of cattle raiding as an obstacle to livestock farming
ACCESS TO CONSUMER MARKETS AND EXPENDITURES (Access to consumer market) 57% of HHs goes to the market at least weekly (Obstacles to access to consumer market) 18% of HHs reports that distance related problems impede access to market. (Barter) 17% of HHs trades goods with other community member at least monthly (Availability of goods) 22% of HHs is not sure to find the needed products in the market
PRODUCTIVE ASSETS, ENERGY and NFI (Non-basic agricultural inputs) 1% of HHs employs ox-ploughs (Access to electric power) 33% of HHs has access to engine-run grinding machine (less than 30 minutes away) (Energy efficiency) 40% of HHs has and uses a stove/Kanun
HUMANITARIAN AND DEVELOPMENT AID (Scope) 125% is the simple sum of the coverage rates of all the humanitarian programs (Targeting) 45% is the simple sum of the coverage rates of all the humanitarian programs in least covered community, Iyire (Scope of skill development) 58% is the simple sum of the coverage rates of all the training programs
ECONOMY 8
PEACE and PARTICIPATION
NATURAL RESOURCES RELATED DISPUTES (Scope of disputes) 19% of HHs is aware of disputes over land and water sources occurring in their communities (Recent disputes) 1.5 number of disputes occurred averagely in the last 3 months. (Main source of conflict) 85% of HHs reporting disputes identify access to water source as the main cause of conflicts (Conflict resolution mechanism) 14% of HHs reporting disputes indicates that the problems were not addressed at all
SAFETY AND CRIMES (Level of concern)10% of HHs mentioned insecurity among the main problems of the last three months (Recent trend) 93% of HHs reported that overall hazard conditions were worse one year ago compared to the latest period (Safety perception) 88% of HHs claims to feel safe in their village, and 51% claims to feel safe when travelling to other areas
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION (Support among people) 20% of HHs exchanges gifts quite frequently (Mutual-help Associations)52% of HHs is associated in an organization, most of them being farmer groups (Participation to community works) 39% of HHs has participated in community works over the last 12 months (Contribution to community works) 24% of HHs contributes to community activities quite frequently (Community discussion) 52% oh HHs was aware of public meetings occurred over the course of the last 3 months (Most debated issue) 69% of HHs reports that the most debated topic during community meetings was Water (Participation) 86% of HHs attended the community meetings that was called for (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) Traditional leaders are more frequently engaged in talking with the overall population and represent the largest share of people with a public function along with teachers
MIGRATION AND IDPs (Net Inflow) Around 19,000 of people moved or relocated across the county in the last 12 months, the large majority localized in Torit Town (Share of Returnees) 19% is the share of individual IDP/Returnees who report coming from another country (returnees) (Urbanization pattern) The net impact of people displacement/relocation is an increase in the share of people living in the Torit town. (Outflow) Approximately 19,000 people have left their households in the last 12 months (Reason for leaving) 18% of people left their household due to hunger (Net migration) Considering outflows and inflows, the population of Torit has remained almost the same over the last 12 months
ECONOMY 9
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, yellow in between.
NYONG/TORIT TOWN (approximately 25% of Torit county population) PW The most food secure community in Torit county, Torit Town, by far, enjoy the best access to social services E With the highest wages, Torit Town enjoys the lowest cost for food and non-food items thanks to its regional market PP Highest levels of community participation and associationism, best perception of safety and improvement, low crime
HIYALLA (16%) PW Relatively good access to social services and relatively good food security (thanks to animal breeding) E Noticeable exchange of crop and animal products at the community level, significant access to productive access PP Low level of associationism. Weak reporting system in cases of abuses
IYIRE (15%) PW Low access to education and healthcare but relatively good food security; limited access to drinking water E The payam with the most varied agriculture farming and the most market-oriented farmers (selling to Magwi/Juba). PP Strong associationism and community participation, low level of disputes, good access to administrative authorities
IFWOTU (7%) PW Highest levels of food insecurity (40% with poor FCS) and social vulnerability and very low access to social services E Limited accessibility and insecurity have disrupted farming; highest share of smallholder farmers. PP The payam with the highest incidence of crime and insecurity; clashes have led to conflict over land property rights
BUR (10%) PW Many families adopted coping strategies, lowest access to healthcare; relatively good food security thanks to livestock E Surface water is conducive to pastoralism and some maize production. Limited access to sale markets is an obstacle. PP Highest incidence of abuses on vulnerable, lowest participation to community meetings, expected increase in conflicts
KUDO (8%) PW Better than average access to health and average access to education and level of food security E Farming of relatively large fields, and significant access to productive access; high level of economic vulnerability PP Strong mechanism of conflict resolution and community participation. Low levels of abuses on vulnerable groups
HIMODONGE (7%) PW Poor access to drinking water; average access to food security and to social services E Very limited use of cash; smaller than average scale of farming PP Problems related to the poorly regulated cutting of trees and land sale; poor reporting of abuses.
LOWOI (6%) PW Low access to water leading to unhygienic practices. Better than average access to social services, including ALPs. E Better than average scale and variety of farming and relatively significant animal farming. PP Strong associationism, limited disputes, high community contributions and frequent exchanges of gifts
IMUROK (6%) PW Large section of families has adopted coping strategies, lowest access to education and vaccines. Low food security. E high level of economic vulnerability, relatively good access to markets PP Significant number of people displaced by insecurity, weak system of reporting of abuses
ECONOMY 10
I. PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY and SCOPE
This introduction provides a description of the rationale, objective and scope of the multi-sector household survey conducted by AVSI Foundation between the 23th of January and the 3rd of February 2019 in Torit, Eastern Equatoria State (recently partitioned and renamed Torit State) – see the table reported on page 13).
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) reminds of 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 Torit for ten years, implementing mainly education and protection projects. While its action has often included some components of food security and livelihood support, AVSI has expand 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.1 This report intends to make such knowledge available to the community and stakeholders of Torit.
Questionnaire The questionnaire employed in this survey was developed based on the WFP/FAO-led Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring System (FSNMS) survey2 and the UNICEF MICS (Multi Indicator Cluster Survey) survey3, with additional questions originating from the Consortium for Improving Agriculture-based Livelihoods in Central Africa (CIALCA) Baseline Survey4, the Secure Livelihood Research Consortium (SLRC) Survey5, the RGAP Smallholder Household Survey6, and a study on natural resource management compiled by the Association on Strengthening Agricultural
1 AVSI (2018) Greater Ikwoto Multi-Sector Household Survey. https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/south- sudan/assessment/2018-greater-ikwoto-multi-sector-survey 2 Food Security Cluster homepage. http://fscluster.org/south-sudan-rep/documents 3 MICS homepage. http://mics.unicef.org/ 4 Questionnaire applied in Congo, Burundi and Rwanda. http://www.cialca.org 5 Questionnaire applied in Congo. http://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/catalog/6039 6 Questionnaire applied in Uganda. http://www.cgap.org/publications/national-survey-and-segmentation-smallholder-households- uganda
PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY and SCOPE 11
Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA)7. 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 Torit.
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 provides 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 Torit’s Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The survey was conducted over the course of 10 days by two teams, each one visiting two different villages per day; thus, the total number of villages surveyed (clusters) was 40. 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, 389 households were surveyed, well above the number of HHs 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 which comprise Torit 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.
7 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
PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY and SCOPE 12
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 is 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 reflects 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.
Torit Torit county is known for its capital, Torit Town, the 5th most important urban centre in South Sudan.
Payams8 Number of HHs9 Population10 Nyong (Torit Town) 11,386 38,986 Hiyalla 4,779 23,899 Iyire 4,687 23,437 Bur 3,145 15,727 Kudo 2,365 11,826 Himodonge 2,137 10,686 Ifwotu 2,067 10,337 Lowoi 1,957 9,788 Imurok 1,690 8,453 Total Torit 34,213 153,139
8 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. 9 Source Gok State (former Cueibet) RRC (October 2018). This figure is 20% less than what commonly indicated by UN agencies. Given the high level of people displacement and the seemingly proactive stance of local administrative authorities it was adopted the estimation presented by the local government. 10 In line with the survey results, the number of family members per household is estimated to be higher than the national average. It was adopted the UN estimation, which puts the average number for former Cueibet at 6.75.
PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY and SCOPE 13
The town overlaps with Nyong payam, the most inhabited of the 9 payams that comprise Torit County. The payams differ a great deal from one another. Torit county comprises of hilly areas with two rainy seasons such as Iyire payam, at the corner of Tort county, bordering Magwi and Ikwoto counties, and flat lowlands with an intense and long dry period of no rain such as Bur and Hiyalla but with access to river streams. The number of households in Torit is around 35,000 families. The population data AVSI used for this report were provided by Torit’s Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC), and are in line with other demographic data gathered by NGOs working in the same area.
Indicative map of Torit 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.
PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY and SCOPE 14
PEOPLE WELFARE
This first section of the report highlights people’s welfare, more emphatically life and death in Torit county. The following sectors 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
Torit hosts a population reliant on the exploitation of natural resources for its survival. Agriculture farming is the main activity, though animal husbandry, and to a lesser extent, fishery, is also significant in the Northern and Eastern section of Torit, namely in Bur and Hiyalla payams.11 In Imurok and Ifwotu, located south-west, not far from Torit Town, the sale of firewood and production of charcoal is also an important occupation. Nyong payam (Torit Town) is marked by an appreciable level of economic diversification, unsurprisingly for the 5th urban centre of South Sudan. At the opposite extreme, virtually every family of Iyire payam is engaged in agriculture farming.
9 Main sources of living Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
Farming and Sale of cereals 37% 68% 69% 46% 62% 61% 67% 66% 86% 62% (sorghum, maize etc.) Farming and Sale of other 23% 8% 21% 15% 7% 10% 10% 10% 10% 12% products (vegetables, g-nuts etc.) Sales of charcoal 10% 0% 7% 9% 3% 19% 10% 7% 3% 7% Sale of firewood 23% 0% 0% 9% 5% 3% 0% 3% 0% 5% Sale of alcoholic beverages 3% 5% 0% 4% 7% 3% 0% 7% 0% 3% Salaried work 0% 0% 0% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% Livestock and Sale of livestock 0% 10% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 3% 0% 2% Sales of grass 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 7% 3% 0% 2% Sale of fish 0% 8% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Producing for self-consumption is as common as producing for exchange, be it bartering or in return for cash. The widespread use of cash in Iyire is due to the strong market orientation of the farmers of this community (see chapter 8). This may come as a surprise given the inaccessibility of this community from Torit Town, but it becomes trivial when the proximity of Iyire to Magwi Town, only 3 hours away from Juba’s markets is considered.
Gains from the source of Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY living (% of HHs) Self-consumption 50% 55% 62% 56% 55% 60% 50% 59% 43% 54% Exchanges with other products 17% 30% 17% 10% 15% 3% 13% 17% 14% 15%
Cash 33% 15% 21% 35% 30% 37% 37% 24% 43% 32%
Contrary to common beliefs, except for the production of alcohol, which is largely a female occupation, and animal keeping, which is mostly led by men, there is not a significant gender differentiation in livelihood activities.
11 Animal husbandry 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 15
Adult Males Adult Females Main Occupation for Adults 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 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
The main economic occupation for adolescents is family duties, followed by hunting/fishing and fruit gathering.
Main Occupation for Adolescents Caring family members/Family duties Hunting, Fishing or Gathering vegetables/fruits/etc 16% Cultivation Production of local alcohol 1 66% 47% 41% 34% 21% Producing or selling firewood/charcoal/bamboo 18% 15% House boy/House girl Gathering or selling of stone/cutting grass/poles and wood Livestock rearing or defense 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%
Children’s main duties have to do with the caring of other family members and housekeeping. 40% of children are reportedly spending most of the day performing their duties (data not shown), leaving little time to attend school.
Main Occupation for Children Caring for younger children Washing dishes/cleaning the house/washing clothes 12% Getting water for the house 1 62% 62% 39% 24% 15% Cooking or preparing ingredients (grinding ingredients) Control the fields against birds 12% They do not contribute Caring for elderly/sick 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%
Overall people’s livelihood has not changed much over the last year. Loss of crops, and the possibly related spike in food prices, is the main driver of worsening livelihood levels. Flooding affected severely Bur (not shown).
Changes in livelihood level over Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY last year and causes of worsening Yes, it has IMPROVED 17% 20% 34% 30% 18% 32% 23% 21% 44% 28% it stayed THE SAME 41% 35% 28% 41% 48% 26% 27% 34% 32% 36% No, it has WORSENED 41% 45% 38% 30% 33% 42% 50% 45% 24% 36%
Loss of crops/harvest 40% 23% 48% 50% 60% 57% 68% 47% 40% 48% Drought 20% 27% 24% 0% 13% 4% 5% 16% 0% 10% Due to inflation/high prices 0% 15% 14% 20% 3% 9% 5% 0% 0% 8% Insecurity 20% 4% 0% 0% 3% 13% 5% 0% 17% 6%
WELFARE 16
2. MAIN PROBLEMS and RESILIENCE (COPING CAPACITY)
The main requests coming from the families of Torit county is the improvement of education (early education being mentioned in several occasions) and the provision and improved management of water (boreholes and irrigation) – indeed water and education are the topics most discussed during community meetings (see Chapter 15). It is worth noting, however, that communities seem to have different priorities. For instance, the improvement of health infrastructures is particularly requested in Iyire and Kudo; whereas the need to improve security and foster peace is particularly relevant for the inhabitants of Nyong (Torit Town); Food seems to be a topic of concern in the area more food insecure (see Chapter 3).
% of HHs by support Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY most demanded Education 29% 30% 6% 18% 18% 33% 21% 15% 27% 22% Water supply 19% 26% 6% 22% 32% 17% 7% 15% 17% 20% Food / Hunger 19% 11% 41% 4% 11% 22% 21% 38% 3% 15% Peace and reconciliation 19% 0% 6% 33% 13% 0% 14% 23% 3% 14% Agriculture 5% 15% 24% 10% 13% 17% 0% 0% 13% 11% Health 5% 15% 0% 10% 5% 6% 21% 8% 23% 11% Roads 0% 0% 6% 2% 3% 0% 7% 0% 13% 4% Wash / Hygiene 0% 4% 12% 0% 5% 6% 7% 0% 0% 3%
Among the recurrent problems faced by the families of Torit, human sickness and unaffordable food are the most common. It should be noticed that problems related to insecurity were only slightly reported.
Human sickness Main Problems faced in the last three months Food too expensive/high food prices COUNTY Weeds/pest Iyire Livestock diseases Lowoi Delay of rains/ late start / dry spell Kudo Other Imurok Insecurity/violence Floods Hiyalla Death of Livestock Nyong Lack of free access/movement Himodonge Loss of income / employment Bur Looting / theft/ loss of assets Ifwotu Returnees/IDPs living with household Death of household member 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Cattle Raid Social Event (Ceremonies, weddings, funerals)
The level of vulnerability of households, on the aftermath of the harvest season, is not consistent with a situation of crisis but it is still alarming, for there are 4 payams out of 9 where almost one-third of families has adopted crisis copying strategies; Bur shows signs of a prolonged condition of vulnerability, whereby many families reported having already exhausted their capacity to cope with external shocks.
WELFARE 17
% of HHs by livelihood coping Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY strategy adopted (and exhausted) No need to adopt coping strategies 70% 66% 69% 88% 86% 61% 86% 78% 88% 79% Adopted Stress coping strategies 3% 5% 3% 1% 0% 6% 0% 4% 2% 2% Adopted Crisis coping strategies 27% 29% 28% 11% 14% 32% 14% 19% 10% 18% Had already exhausted crisis coping 10% 18% 7% 7% 3% 13% 3% 0% 2% 7% strategies
The sale of productive assets seems the most commonly adopted crisis coping strategy, and deserves special attention as they limit the possibility of families to engage in more productive activities.
HHs engaging in coping strategies STRESS Went to friends to eat COUNTY Iyire STRESS Sold Household assets Lowoi STRESS Borrowed money for food Kudo Imurok STRESS Spent savings or sold more animals Hiyalla CRISIS Sold productive assets Nyong Himodonge CRISIS Reduced essential non-food items Bur Ifwotu CRISIS Consumed seeds held for cultivation CRISIS Withdrew children from school 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%
It is worth mentioning that the ultimate emergency coping strategy, migration, is lower than the inflow of people (Chapter 16).
HHs who have already exhausted their coping strategies STRESS ALREADY went to friends to eat COUNTY Iyire STRESS ALREADY Sold Household assets Lowoi STRESS ALREADY borrowed money for food Kudo Imurok STRESS ALREADY Sent savings or sold more animals Hiyalla CRISIS ALREADY Sold productive assets Nyong Himodonge CRISIS ALREADY Reduced essential non-food Bur items CRISIS ALREADY consumed seeds held for Ifwotu cultivation CRISIS ALREADY withdrew children from school 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
WELFARE 18
3. FOOD SECURITY
▪ At the end of January, the overall food security condition of Torit’s families classified as one of a mild crisis (IPC phase 3); however, three out of the nine payams face markedly dire conditions, whereby 40% of families register a poor food consumption score (FCS) in those areas. This is alarming considering that such findings describe the food security conditions of Torit at the end of January, right after the harvest season.
After the harvest season, the overall food security condition in Torit is that of a mild crisis (IPC phase 3) – not emergency but still upsetting: 24% of households are in a condition of “moderate hunger” as for the Household Hunger Scale (HHS); likewise, the number of meals averagely consumed is below the threshold of 3 meals per day; more alarming, 21% of households have a “poor” Food consumption Score (FCS), and 37% have a “borderline” FCS. Together, these indicators describe a situation of vulnerable food security conditions: despite the recent harvest, around one-fifth of families has limited access to food; moreover, only half of the population has access to an acceptable varied and nutrient diet.
% of HHs by Food Access Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY # of meals - Adults 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.7 2.1 2.1 number of meals – U5 Children 2.3 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.5 3.4 3.1 2.3 2.6 2.7 (not breastfeeding)
HHS- Little to no hunger 63% 65% 76% 81% 77% 61% 77% 69% 81% 74% HHS- Moderate hunger 27% 28% 24% 19% 23% 39% 23% 31% 19% 24% HHS - Severe hunger 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
The communities more affected by food scarcity are Ifwotu, Imurok and Bur. However, considering the nutritional values of the food consumed, Bur’s does not score badly, thanks to the widespread consumption of milk (see next page); on the contrary, Lowoi should be added to Ifwotu and Imurok among the communities most insecure, where around 40% of families have a poor FCS, i.e. 40% of families cannot sustain the human development of their children.
It should be noticed that Bur also shows the greatest level of inequality in terms of access to nutritious food, suggesting the presence of a pocket of families facing severe food insecurity, possibly smallholder farmers with no animals and who cannot afford milk. At the other extreme lies Torit Town (Nyong payam), where people enjoy the most varied and nutritious diet – possibly related to higher wages and lower food prices that a regional market seems to ensure, especially during harvest season).
% of HHs by Food Consumption Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Score acceptable 21% 65% 40% 56% 61% 10% 33% 25% 33% 42% borderline 39% 22% 28% 38% 20% 52% 43% 36% 52% 37% poor 39% 14% 32% 6% 20% 39% 23% 39% 16% 21%
Mean of FCS 26.2 39.5 28.6 39.2 36.8 25.6 30.7 27.3 30.9 33.2
Standard Dev 12.8 18.4 16.1 13.8 17.1 9.4 11.4 12.9 11.5 15.0
WELFARE 19
When looking at the food items generally consumed it should be noted that access to food that is not so tied to seasonality is rather limited. All nutrient-rich food such as meat and fish, legumes, milk and other dairy products are consumed occasionally, only 1.2 times per week; Fruits and orange vegetables are consumed even less frequently. When it comes to the specific conditions of the different communities, Nyong (Torit Town) stands out for its varied diet. Even more interesting, Bur and Hiyalla show a remarkable consumption of milk, respectively 4 and 3 times per week (result of the widespread rearing of cattle in those two payams – see chapter 9).
Food consumption frequency in a week by item (7=every day) COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 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
Finally, it is key to note the role of markets, especially in relation to the food items that are mostly traded, namely protein-rich products (oil/fat/butter, eggs, legumes, meat).
Source of food by item 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 28% Cereals 21% Green vegetables 22% Orange fruits 90% Oil / fat / butter 56% Legumes / nuts 23% Milk 28% Fruits 29% Orange vegetables 49% Meat, fish 63% 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 regularly than staple food, it could be thought that markets have a minor role in relation to food security; however, this 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
WELFARE 20
food security in Torit requires close attention to and improvement of both the production (farming) and commercialization (marketing) of pulses and livestock with the objective of lowering costs of production and prices on the market. In turn, this requires supporting market-oriented producers (without failing to help vulnerable farmers), following a value-chain approach that looks at both actors and infrastructures: in the case of livestock, at the slaughter houses and its personnel as well as the providers of vaccines.
% of HHs with "poor" FCS by key COUNTY Given the key role that food security plays in defining the well- groups being of people, it is particularly useful to review the food security Average for the total population of 21% conditions for specific socio-economic groups of the population. Torit Without cattle 28% This profiling exercise helps distinguish the most well-off groups Cultivating only one crop 24% from the most vulnerable, information that is vital to improve Not applying agricultural practices in targeting of humanitarian projects and to shed light on crucial 26% the 3 domains context-specific dynamics at play in this area, thus improving the Smallholders (less than 1 Ha of 26% targeting of development-oriented initiatives. private land only)
With small private land (less than 1 21%
ha) but cultivating in common Overall, especially when compared with other areas (see AVSI’s Cultivating land in common 16% surveys in Ikwoto or Cueibet county), this data is consistent with an Cultivating land in common for self- urban setting, where markets-related dynamics are discernible EXPECTED 23% consumption (farmers investing in agricultural inputs or hiring casual workers are
Agricultural inputs bought with cash indeed more well off) and informal safety net are less effective, 14% provided by livelihood activity (families with fewer income sources – those with elderly members or single-parent – are the most food insecure). Employing casual labour 7% Employing ox-plough 0% However, the marked gap between Torit Town and the surrounding Member of a seed multiplication 0% payams (see the rest of the report) reflects the feeble nature of group these market dynamics, which remains quite incipient. The most
With elderly 26% patent proof of this is the fact that families resorting to bartering,
Widow or woman with no support 27% seem to enjoy a better situation than those relying on sales to the WORTH
NOTICING More than 4 family member 16% market. cultivating
IDP/Returnees 10% Taken together, these figures suggest a sort of stratified Hosting orphans 21% community, where along some (probably few) well-off farmers
Bartered what obtained with main engaged in commercial farming, there are (probably many) worse- 13% livelihood activity off smallholder farmers, possibly without access to common land Consuming what obtained with main and/or without animals to heard, who struggle to meet their needs. 21% livelihood activity A similar contrast seems to exist among farmer groups who are Cash obtained with main livelihood 26% supported only with seeds and other agricultural inputs (that activity hardly meets their food security needs) and the members of seed
SURPRISING Employing seeds of prime quality 20% multiplication groups (none of which is in a condition of food Member of a farmer group 21% supported by an NGO insecurity as per FCS). Member of a farmer group supported by an NGO and provided 17% by seeds by NGO Member of informal farmer group 27%
WELFARE 21
4. HEALTH
The latest SMART survey conducted in Torit, in August 2017, recorded an alarming level of mortality (Crude Mortality Rate - CRM) of 2.2712, suggesting a situation of “catastrophe” (IPC classification).13 AVSI’s survey confirms the disturbing high rate of mortality. The review of the rate of dead sons/daughters per household suggests some differences among communities, which may reflect some longer-term conflict dynamics; Imurok, for instance, was one of the most severely affected areas by insecurity, at least in the years of 2016 and 2017.
Mortality Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
CMR (deaths/10,000 people/day) 2.2 3.4 1.3 1.4 2.3 2.5 1.1 2.8 4.1 2.4
% of sons and daughters who died 14% 8% 9% 11% 6% 26% 13% 17% 12% 12% per household
Limited access to health services and risky health practices/lack of awareness on the part of families concur to undermine health outcomes. On average, access to natal care services not more widespread compared to the neighboring rural county of Ikwoto; however, there is a wide divide between the people living in Torit Town and the families residing in other communities. Worth noticing are the dire conditions registered in Imurok, which is also the community registering higher numbers of deaths of sons/daughters. All in all, natal health coverage seems quite limited, certainly not reflecting the proximity to the fifth largest urban center of South Sudan.
Pre and Post Natal care (based on Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY mothers of U3 years children) % who visited any doctor before 60% 68% 80% 100% 78% 73% 76% 58% 58% 75% delivery % who was visited in a health 60% 37% 60% 100% 50% 45% 59% 50% 46% 60% facility % who was visited in a health facility in the first trimester of 33% 23% 45% 97% 36% 28% 59% 43% 43% 49% pregnancy
% assisted by qualified health 20% 11% 30% 81% 33% 0% 18% 8% 8% 29% workers during delivery % visited in the days/weeks after 33% 32% 30% 75% 33% 9% 47% 17% 42% 41% delivery
In fact, poor access to natal health services seems to be the main problem rather than the quality of natal health services per se. Indeed, women point to the lack of doctors available in proximity as the reason why they did not seek healthcare during the first three months of pregnancy. Additionally, when women deliver in hospitals, they are rightly advised to feed their babies right after birth. Knowledge of IYCF practices seems to be above state
12 Nutrition Cluster SMART-validated data gathered in the second part of 2018. https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/south-sudan/document/smart-survey-matrix-2018 13 Further methodological reference on the IPC classification can be accesses here: http://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC-Manual-2-Interactive.pdf
WELFARE 22
standard as exclusive breastfeeding of infants under 6 months is practiced by 86% of women (compared to 67% in Ikwoto), above the 80% alarm threshold indicated by WHO.
Reasons why antenatal care was IYCF (Infant and Young Child Feeding) Incidence N Early initiation of breastfeeding (0-23.9 sought only after the 1st trimester 86% 111 months) of pregnancy Early initiation of breastfeeding (0-23.9 5% months) among women who delivered in 100% 31 Because I did not know health centres 19% I was pregnant Exclusive breastfeeding (0-5.9 months) 86% 49 Because there was no Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods doctor around 40% 15 (6-8.9 months) 76% Other reasons Continued breastfeeding at 12 months (12-15 90% 21 months)
Vaccination coverage is also comparable to the neighboring rural county of Ikwoto.
Vaccinations (U3 babies) Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY % with birth registration 60% 78% 60% 97% 72% 36% 76% 50% 48% 69% % with any vaccination 79% 58% 89% 100% 94% 60% 75% 70% 63% 79% % with BCG vaccination for 50% 47% 67% 90% 82% 60% 63% 40% 47% 64% tuberculosis % with tetanus vaccination 54% 58% 63% 91% 88% 50% 75% 50% 58% 69% % vaccinated against measles 31% 53% 78% 68% 47% 40% 63% 40% 47% 53% % vaccinated against pneumonia 46% 47% 67% 69% 53% 40% 44% 20% 44% 51%
The same comparable coverage to Ikwoto is observed in reference to other preventive treatments such as Vitamin A, and de-worming capsules, as well the use of mosquito nets.
Treatment in the last 6 months Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY (U3 years babies) % who received a capsule of 46% 56% 44% 63% 47% 50% 63% 60% 58% 56% vitamin A % who received any de-worming 38% 53% 56% 56% 29% 40% 56% 50% 58% 50% treatment Sleep under a mosquito net 100% 58% 80% 86% 74% 71% 65% 70% 53% 76%
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 (similar findings and figures were found for Ikwoto).
WELFARE 23
Morbidity (U3 years babies) Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
Illness in the last 2 weeks 60% 68% 30% 66% 39% 45% 35% 25% 29% 47% Diarrhea – any episode of more than three (liquid-like) stools per 50% 53% 60% 33% 0% 33% 43% 100% 33% 40% day Fever/Malaria 67% 60% 40% 62% 89% 67% 71% 0% 89% 66% Other 25% 0% 0% 19% 11% 17% 0% 0% 0% 10%
Apparently, medical advice is sought frequently although parents occasionally finds the care of community health workers only, rather than health workers located in health centres. As what occurs in other areas of the country, malaria treatment is sought very often.
Treatment of sicknesses (U3 years Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY babies) % who sought medical advice 78% 77% 100% 100% 86% 80% 83% 100% 71% 86% % who visited PHC 43% 70% 100% 80% 100% 75% 100% 67% 80% 78% % who took any medicine 27% 59% 56% 55% 47% 20% 38% 30% 35% 43% % who was prescribed medicine by 20% 59% 56% 34% 47% 20% 38% 30% 35% 37% PHC % who was tested for malaria 38% 46% 100% 71% 71% 20% 50% 33% 71% 58% % who received malaria treatment 50% 46% 100% 60% 71% 60% 67% 67% 71% 61%
However, self-medication can be quite risky given the poor knowledge on health. As an example, 91% of the local population is not aware that children affected by diarrhea need to drink more liquids. This figures are even lower than those found for Ikwoto and show the need for a strong sensitization on key health messages.
How much was the baby given to eat How much was the baby given to during diarrhea? drink during diarrhea? 6% 6% 6% 12% 15% 9%
32% 35% 41% 38%
Nothing to eat Much less than usual Nothing to drink Much less than usual Somehow less About the same Somehow less About the same More More
WELFARE 24
5. HYGIENE
Constrained access to safe water, although hardly the only factor, may very well help to explain the bad health and mortality outcomes affecting Torit. It is important to emphasize this linkage because too often water interventions are framed merely in terms of their contribution to livelihood conditions. In Torit, access to water does not seem severely constrained, nor particularly good. Bur seems to be the community with more limited access to water. In Lowoi, there is a worrisome share of the population who drinks surface water. Of special concern is the situation in Himodonge (see also chapter 8) and Iyire, where people use water from rivers, which is far from being clean and safe, especially at the beginning of rainy season.
Access to water Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY % who uses surface water (pond) 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 6% 0% 14% 10% 4% as source of drinking water % who uses a river as source of 67% 20% 59% 35% 3% 6% 0% 3% 61% 29% drinking water % who walks more than 30 minutes 30% 48% 40% 23% 26% 31% 14% 34% 23% 30% to access water % who faces changing water source 20% 28% 34% 25% 18% 16% 17% 28% 61% 29% depending on season % who use a water source 40% 30% 25% 49% 28% 52% 57% 41% 61% 43% equipped with a drainage system
It is remarkable the share of people who were trained on hygiene, around half of the population. Still, it should be considered that, certain absent material conditions, such new knowledge does not automatically translate into new habits. So, for instance, although people who were sensitized on hygiene do wash their hands more frequently than others, washing hands with soap is similar for trained and not trained. Once again, we are reminded of the interconnections between sectors, and the need to design holistic interventions.
Hygiene practices Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY % who was trained on Hygiene and 41% 53% 38% 75% 46% 55% 57% 62% 32% 52% Cholera prevention % sweep their compound daily 90% 98% 86% 96% 92% 100% 93% 100% 88% 94% - among those who received 92% 95% 82% 95% 93% 100% 100% 100% 94% 95% Hygiene trainings % who covers drinking water 41% 69% 66% 91% 61% 43% 66% 41% 40% 61% - among those who received 67% 79% 82% 92% 70% 38% 69% 33% 42% 69% Hygiene trainings % who uses soap 50% 38% 55% 86% 55% 45% 54% 57% 46% 57% - among those who received 75% 40% 45% 88% 48% 59% 53% 53% 44% 62% Hygiene trainings % of children who washes their 72% 72% 62% 81% 49% 67% 63% 55% 54% 65% hands regularly - among those who received 100% 75% 55% 83% 35% 79% 59% 56% 47% 67% Hygiene trainings % who wash their hands at least 45% 53% 62% 30% 52% 70% 43% 62% 54% 49% twice - among those who received 100% 80% 73% 98% 78% 75% 82% 72% 89% 86% Hygiene trainings % who use latrines 30% 0% 3% 65% 2% 10% 23% 0% 5% 20% - among those who received 50% 0% 0% 75% 4% 12% 24% 0% 16% 30% Hygiene trainings
WELFARE 25
6. EDUCATION
The educational profile of the survey respondents, 90% of whom are between 18 and 50 years of age, represents a reference to interpret the educational outcomes of Torit’s youth. It shows that around two-thirds of household caretakers has had no experience at all of schooling in their life time. This figure provides both a sense of the great leap required for parents to appreciate the value of education – something that cannot be imposed or expected naturally – and it reveals the great discontinuity that the spread of education may promote. The divide that distinguishes the population of Torit Town from other communities of the county is also evident.
Education level of houshold caretakers COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 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 widespread, with only one-tenth of caretakers capable of reading in Arabic, the most common language among adults, and just above half of the population speaks English, the official language that generates most of the new knowledge brought by trainings and business opportunities.
% of HHs by language skills Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
Reading Arabic (someone in the HH) 13% 13% 10% 21% 5% 3% 17% 7% 7% 11% Speaking English (someone in HH) 57% 60% 55% 88% 47% 45% 60% 52% 51% 60%
Primary education services are not abundant in Torit, leaving one-third of households more than 30 minutes away from a school, two-thirds of payams like Imurok and Ifwotu have a large number of schools that are reported to be non-functioning or offering only lower primary classes. Nonetheless, it is crucial to notice that adolescents are more likely to be in school compared to younger children. That younger children face greater barriers to education than adolescents, is a well-known and yet often overlooked feature of primary education in South Sudan, as proved by the old age at which children enter the schooling system, a greatly missed opportunity given the unique benefit that early education has on children’ development of cognitive abilities and social skills.14 These are the
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 26
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.
Primary Education supply and Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY demand % of HHs with a school at less than 37% 79% 62% 86% 92% 33% 66% 52% 45% 66% 30-minute walk Children (4 to 9 years) school 56% 50% 58% 89% 76% 45% 53% 39% 46% 63% enrollment Adolescents (10 to 18 years) school 65% 46% 93% 88% 83% 71% 55% 53% 55% 71% enrollment
The review of the reasons why parents do not send their children and adolescents to school shows that the expenses related to schooling is by far the biggest obstacle, followed by lack of teachers, lack of a close by or fully equipped school and lack of school meals. Insecurity is mentioned by a negligible share of families and, pregnancy, although significant, does not seems to be as important as is commonly believed.
Reasons for not attending schools Because the school is too far 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% 20% 40% 60% Adolescents between 10 and 18 years of age Children between 4 and 9 years of age
The lack of teachers is also among the top reasons why children are sent back from schools, possibly being one of the main drivers of absenteeism, and ultimately dropout.
% of HHs reporting children sent Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY back home in the last school term It did not happen 17% 20% 28% 30% 30% 23% 20% 10% 15% 23% Not enough teachers 7% 13% 7% 19% 22% 16% 27% 14% 19% 17% Other reasons 10% 15% 24% 23% 22% 10% 20% 7% 15% 17%
As a form of punishment 3% 0% 3% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2%
The student refused to go to 3% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% classes
Shifting to more qualitative aspects related to the quality of education, it is important to notice the marked differences registered among communities.
WELFARE 27
Education out of school and Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY parent participation Pupil has homework 58% 6% 18% 52% 11% 18% 21% 44% 32% 30% Pupil receive help for homework 50% 13% 18% 20% 11% 25% 21% 22% 37% 22% Parent know any teacher 67% 47% 53% 58% 66% 25% 71% 67% 56% 58% Parent attended school meeting (last 63% 63% 89% 79% 64% 67% 70% 17% 90% 70% year)
Taking only into consideration the students attending schools where English is the main language used in class, and focusing on those enrolled in P4 or higher classes, two-thirds can read basic sentences extracted from a textbook meant for P4 students, and only 43% can fully understand its meaning. More alarmingly, only one out of ten children can do simple math (involving one or two-digit figures). The need to improve teaching practices and promoting conditions conducive to learning is desperate both in in the countryside as much as in Torit town.
% of HHs by cognitive capacity Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Reading basic sentence 82% 75% 100% 64% 63% 60% 33% 67% 50% 65% Basic reading comprehension 55% 38% 20% 52% 40% 40% 33% 20% 50% 43% Basic numerical comprehension 23% 5% 12% 26% 15% 7% 10% 4% 3% 13% Basic numerical skills (additions) 18% 13% 0% 3% 7% 0% 33% 0% 17% 9%
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 Torit encompasses a significant wide section of the population, albeit visibly smaller (half) compared to other places in the country (for instance Cueibet). Ifwotu is the community that deserves more attention as the share of families in those condition of social vulnerability is greater. Moreover, households who have elderly who need assistance among their family members are among the most food insecure (see chapter 3), representing a considerable one-fourth of the total population.
% of HHs by social vulnerability Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY condition Child(ren) from other families, 47% 35% 14% 23% 18% 19% 17% 21% 36% 26% without mother or father Elderly who need assistance and/or 43% 28% 31% 19% 28% 16% 23% 28% 22% 25% cannot work Disable* person(s) who need 20% 10% 17% 16% 8% 19% 10% 17% 12% 14% assistance Widow or woman without the 10% 5% 14% 7% 7% 0% 3% 0% 5% 6% financial support of any male *defined as Physically impaired, Burned by fire, Deaf and dumb, Mental Disability, Lame
Mental distress is also lower (half) when compared to a place like Cueibet, yet it is still considerable, with almost a quarter of the population seeking the repeated intervention of some healer (whose qualifications are difficult to assess but presumably inadequate).
WELFARE 28
% of HHs with family members Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY with mental condition With several children withdrawn or 24% 13% 18% 30% 27% 25% 24% 20% 22% 24% consistently sad Felt so troubled that sought help 24% 24% 29% 22% 25% 35% 30% 30% 21% 26% more than once in the last year
Moreover, around 11% of children and adolescents are reportedly subject to repeated physical abuse (the double of what was found in Ikwoto County, EES), 2% were sexually abused, and 7% do drugs or engage in other deviant practices. Bur seems to be the place where children are more subject to abuse.
% of HHs who report abuse on children 6 to 17 years old over the last year Using abusive words/language COUNTY Withheld a meal to punish Iyire Repeated physical abuse Lowoi Kudo Involved in child labor with a Imurok component of exchange of money Hiyalla Family separation (run away, Nyong chased)/neglected Child involved in drugs, drinking Himodonge alcohol, or otherwise Bur Stigmatized/discriminated due to Ifwotu gender, illness or disability Sexually abused, defiled, raped, 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% forced into sex
Unfortunately, Bur is also the place where such crimes go more often unreported and the involvement of law enforcement personnel is the least common, “THERE ARE NOT PROBLEMS something which was patently confirmed by key informants. Across Torit, even in IN BUR AS ISSUES ARE the capital, reporting to police of child abuse is very negligible. On the other hand, RESOLVED PEACEFULLY it is interesting to notice the partial exception of Ifwotu, where especially BETWEEN FAMILIES” Representative from Bur community leaders are involved in the management of cases of abuses.
% of HHs by referral paths in case Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY of child abuse or violence Do nothing, talk to neighbors or 43% 75% 82% 72% 84% 86% 77% 70% 71% 74% the offender Report it to community leaders 46% 25% 18% 12% 15% 14% 19% 26% 27% 21% Report it to police 11% 0% 0% 16% 2% 0% 4% 4% 2% 5%
Threats to women, on the contrary, are reportedly intense in Ifwotu. Forced marriage is significant especially in Bur, confirming the significant problems “THERE ARE NO MORE related to protection in such communities (where abuse of children and women PROBLEMS OF FORCED are frequent and reporting to the authorities is very uncommon). Bur is just an MARRIAGE; THE PRICE OF example of a view that is widespread across Torit, whereby problems that do not DOWRY HAS BEEN FIXED lead to conflicts among families are not considered as problems by the AND THEREFORE THERE ARE police/administrative forces as much as by the population at large. NOT ANYMORE PROBLEMS AMONG FAMILIES” Representative from Bur
WELFARE 29
% of HHs reporting threats to Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY women (and types) Presence of specific threats to 37% 35% 3% 14% 17% 13% 0% 25% 28% 19% women and girls Physical assault / beating 27% 15% 0% 11% 13% 10% 0% 21% 12% 12% Rape 10% 8% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3% 17% 5% Forced marriage 17% 25% 0% 2% 8% 0% 0% 3% 10% 7% Sexual assault 10% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 7% 2%
Psychological / emotional abuse 7% 15% 3% 7% 5% 10% 0% 14% 10% 8%
Denied resources /opportunities 13% 5% 0% 5% 5% 6% 0% 10% 8% 6% /services
Finally, it should be noticed that protecting women requires also the sensitization of women themselves. In fact, it is very common for women to condone abusive behaviors of their husbands.
% of women reporting that a man is justified when beating his wife If he is too drunk
COUNTY if she does not respect him Iyire if she argues with him Lowoi Kudo If she neglects the children Imurok Hiyalla If she goes out without telling him Nyong If she refused to have sex with him Himodonge Bur if she burns the food Ifwotu In no cases is the husband justified in hitting 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% or beating his wife
Undoubtedly the gender-gap contributes to the reproduction of questionable habits and stereotypes. In Torit, adult females have 100% higher chance of not having received any school education (75% of females compared to 33% of males – not shown). Conversely, the share of male adults with a certain level of education is consistently much higher compared to female adults.
Level of shooling of adults (respondents) by gender 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
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 Female Male More than Secondary Some years of Accelerated Learning School
WELFARE 30
The educational gender gap among adults is widening. Programmes for accelerated learning, which may provide a second chance of education to groups lacking behind, seem to cover more men than women, as only 0.3% of adult females report attending such programmes, compared to 1.1% for adult males.
The gender imbalance manifests in other domains too, including the numerous wives per male, which brings the additional distortion posed by the numerosity of single males. In Torit, this phenomenon is less common than in other areas of South Sudan.
HHs Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
Average number of wives per man 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.7
Finally, the condition of those women who are either the only or the main contributor to the family livelihood (an approximation of female-headed families, who strictly speaking do not exist as female-headed families customarily join other families) should be reviewed.
Male vs Female contribution to familiy income COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 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
Basically, female-headed families represent a vulnerable group; representing around 10% of the families in Torit, they suffer among those with the poorest food security conditions. Notably, they are rather involved in decision making at the local level in relation to the traditional government; on the contrary, they are visibly less involved in the support provided by the humanitarian system. These results clearly indicate the need to improve programming.
WELFARE 31
Families supported Families not supported Food security and associationism and voice of female headed families mainly by women mainly by women acceptable 32% 45% Food borderline 35% 36% consumption poor 32% 19% No particular role 51% 49% Teacher 17% 14% Member of a Nyampara or Mukungu 11% 10% decision Sector leader 3% 6% making / public bodies Landlord 9% 4% Administrative authority 6% 4% Chairman or committee member of informal farmer group 0% 4% Nyampara or Mukungu 31% 31% Sector leader 17% 11% Direct Administrative authority 11% 8% contact with Landlord 11% 8% leaders Chairman of farmer groups supported by NGO 6% 5% Chairman of informal farmer groups 6% 5% Opinion leader 3% 1% Participation Attended public meeting 76% 88% Agricultural inputs i.e. seeds 23% 37% Agricultural tools 11% 27% Health /medicines 9% 19% Nutrition (e.g. Blanket supplementary feeding, etc) 9% 12% Food distribution 9% 12% Humanitarian Food in the Schools 9% 11% support Food in exchange for work 3% 3% Advise from extension service 3% 3% Veterinary service 0% 2% Non-Food Items (kitchen sets, blankets, Khanga) 3% 2% School fees /uniforms 3% 1% Fishing gear 0% 1% Informal group of farmers 29% 21% Farmer group supported by NGO 14% 21% Member of Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA)/ Credit and Saving Group 6% 9% an income Cooperative/SME 0% 7% generation Women group; Church group; Self-help group; Community-based 3% 6% association organization, Youth group Health Others 0% 4% Common Interest group/Seed Multiplication group 3% 3%
WELFARE 32
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 Torit’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 non-food items (NFI) (chapter 11), and the humanitarian and development support (chapter 12).
8. AGRICULTURE
• Consistently with the evidence gathered on overall livelihood activities (Chapter 1) livestock farming (Chapter 9) and access to the market (Chapter 10), the communities of Torit county show a considerable level of specialization even with regard to agricultural farming due not only to agro-climatic differences but also to market dynamics. Such specialization is visible both in the quantity produced in the sort of crops cultivated and in the variety of farming production. That said, there is ample evidence that indicates that while some farmers sell large share of their produce out of a deliberate livelihood strategy another section of famers does so out of necessity. Among the former, the most conspicuous group, around 30% of farmers is composed of people who cultivate in so called “communal lands”, most of the time with the help of day workers or community members paid in cash. Communal farmers are also the group who most increased its production in 2018. It is crucial to notice that, first, a huge 50% of communal farmers say that what they produce in the common land is more important to them compared to their private farming, and second, that the use of products made in common production is more beneficial, i.e. it is used for investments, education and health purposes, and in some cases saved in communal accounts.
Land under cultivation and water access Agricultural farming is conducted by virtually all households in Torit county, the only exception being Torit Town, where one out of five household does not cultivate land. With the exception of the hilly community of Iyire, most families cultivate few plots of land located less than 15-minutes away from home.
% of HHs Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Cultivating land 93% 100% 100% 81% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96%
Average # of plots of land owned 2.2 2.0 2.3 1.9 2.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.5 2.6
Cultivating all plots owned 68% 76% 59% 85% 77% 87% 70% 86% 74% 77% Given some plots to others to use 5% 0% 7% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 0% 2% Not using some plots of land 26% 24% 34% 15% 21% 13% 30% 9% 26% 22%
Living less than 15 minutes away 46% 23% 31% 18% 25% 26% 17% 7% 63% 30% from its plots of cultivated lands
Number of people contributing to 4.3 3.2 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.5 3.5 cultivation
ECONOMY 33
Land located near families’ homes are more likely to be those of smaller size – “WE REFER TO GROUP GARDEN most certainly those of the 50% of families who cultivate less than 1 hectare TO TALK ABOUT COMMUNAL (Ha). Still, it is more common for people to cultivate fields of 1 to 2 hectares FARMING; WE DO IT MOSTLY WITH and/or to cultivate both private and common land. In the common land, also THE INTENT OF PRODUCING FOR commonly known as “group gardens”, every farmer cultivates the same sort of THE MARKET AND OBTAIN CASH” crops (not shown). Much less common is the cultivation of extended fields, Representative from kudo payam, above 5 feddans, whether in private or in communal land. former NPA supported farmer, currently supported by Cordaid
% of HH Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Cultivating less than 1 Ha. of 71% 50% 59% 71% 62% 39% 20% 34% 37% 51% PRIVATE land Cultivating between 1 and 2 Ha. of 23% 45% 41% 20% 28% 55% 67% 48% 51% 39% PRIVATE land Cultivating more than 2 Ha. of 3% 5% 0% 4% 10% 6% 13% 17% 12% 8% PRIVATE land Cultivating PRIVATE and COMMON 21% 25% 38% 26% 20% 39% 37% 38% 29% 29% land Cultivating also COMMON LAND of 11% 10% 10% 8% 5% 10% 7% 3% 2% 7% 5 OR MORE FEDDANS
Considering also the participation (or non participation) of smallholder farmers -- to communal farming, households cultivating only private land of less than 1 ha (insufficient to cover food needs for one entire year) –, is rather significant, at around 40% of the population. Still, there are ample differences among communities: in Ifwotu the share of smallholders reaches almost 60% of the population, while in Kudo it is only 13%. Equally worth observing is that the more food insecure communities are not necessarily those where farmers have the smallest plots of land, a sign that suggests that other dynamics are at play, mainly market access and animal rearing.
% of HH Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Less than 1ha of private land 57% 40% 38% 55% 52% 29% 13% 24% 27% 39% without common land Less than 1ha of private land plus 14% 10% 21% 17% 10% 10% 7% 10% 10% 12% common land More than 1ha private land 21% 35% 24% 20% 28% 32% 50% 38% 44% 32% without common land More than 1ha private land with 7% 15% 17% 9% 10% 29% 30% 28% 19% 17% common land
The size of land cultivated on average by farmers in Torit is around 1.45 ha.15 Based on the total population provided by Torit’s RRC (35,000 HHs - November 2018), the total land cultivated in Torit is, therefore, just above 50,000 ha – 13,700 HHs (39%) cultivating only up to 1 ha of private land, 2/3 ha on average; 4,200 HHs (12%) cultivating up to 1 ha of private land, 2/3 ha on average, plus another 1/3 ha of common land; 11,200 HHs (32%) cultivating between 1 and 2 ha of private land, 1.5 ha on average, plus another 0.5 ha of common land; 5,800 HHs (17%) cultivating an average of 2.5 ha. Surely, as already stated, there are some noteworthy differences across communities, Kudo being a paradigmatic example, where smallholders are few.
15 0.65 ha is the latest estimation of FAO/WFP (2019 CFSAM http://www.fao.org/3/ca3643en/ca3643en.pdf.) Yet, key informants/authorities from the 9 payams of Torit indicated 2 to 3 feddans (just above 1 Ha) and 500Kg per Ha (or “50 bundles”), as a realistic estimation of average fields per household, and productivity of crop production.
ECONOMY 34
Compared to last year, the size of land under cultivation has not increased significantly – if anything there is evidence of the opposite. Although these estimations must be taken with a pinch of salt (the respondents may have not distinguished between land cultivated and yields obtained), it appears that the most dynamic farmers in 2018 were smallholder? farmers cultivating also common land. On the other side of the spectrum, medium farmers cultivating only private land seem to have scaled back their efforts. Among the reasons most frequently reported for cultivating less lend besides the lack of rain and inputs was insufficient human power (not shown).
Variation in land cultivated compared to one year before 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 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 of land Cultivating smaller size of land Cultivating the same size of land
To appreciate more the land available for agriculture, it is important to review its characteristics and quality. Access to water provides a first glimpse of this. The limited access to water faced by the farmers of Himodonge is evident.
Access to water (on January) Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Water source changes depending 20% 28% 34% 25% 18% 16% 17% 28% 61% 29% on season
Less than 30 minutes far away 77% 70% 52% 77% 60% 74% 86% 66% 69% 70% Between 30 minutes and 1 hour 13% 20% 34% 16% 25% 23% 14% 17% 21% 20% Between 1 hour and 2 hours 7% 10% 14% 7% 12% 3% 0% 14% 10% 9% Between 2 hours and 4 hours 3% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1%
The information on the presence of spoiled boreholes reveals that Himodonge has historically received little support in terms of water infrastructure. On the other hand, Hiyalla, which has also limited access to water, may benefit from the repair of spoiled boreholes.
Access to water in the past and Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY (possibly) future Presence of closer nonfunctioning 47% 87% 10% 67% 62% 35% 61% 61% 18% 51% boreholes Presence water management 47% 58% 14% 73% 58% 68% 77% 79% 10% 54% committees
To gain a full understanding of the problem of water access, it is important to remember that this is consistently reported as the most pressing issue for farmers. Only in Iyire this is not the case, which is not surprising giving the presence of abundance rain in the hilly community. Furthermore, it is also important to notice the problems related to flooding, which particularly affects the communities of Bur and Himodonge. The second most important obstacle for farmers is pests and diseases, which points to the absence of an extension service.
ECONOMY 35
Main challanges reported by farmers Shortage of rain Pests and diseases COUNTY Iyire Shortage of hand tools Lowoi Shortage of seeds Kudo Imurok Flooding Hiyalla High cost of seeds Nyong Himodonge Loss of crops Bur Heavy weed and Ifwotu infestation Labor constraints 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350%
Farming variety
Farmers cultivate a relatively wide variety of crops. However, it is important to notice some key differences. First, there is a big gap between Hiyalla and Bur, where there is only one season of rain, compared to the rest of the county, where there is a bimodal rain season. Moreover, there is a certain level of specialization among communities: while sorghum is cultivated everywhere by almost every farmer, maize, groundnuts, beans, cassava, and millet are widely cultivated only in some communities. Confirming the complex fabric of Torit County, the farming specialization of communities does not follow the simple mountains and low land divide: Maize is cultivated in a rainy area like Iyire as much as in a lowland plateau area like Bur, where there is little rain but there is nevertheless enough water brought by the main river of Torit, which in Bur forms large ponds.
Crop/Vegetable produced by HHs (in the prviate land) COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% 500% Sorghum Maize Groundnuts Millet Other Vegetables Cassava Greens Cowpeas Fruits Beans
The analysis of the individual farmer shows that there is a segment of farmers, around 10% of them, who cultivate only one crop. It should be noticed that not all of them are worse-off: in places like Hiyalla and Bur no monocrop farmer is in a condition of food insecurity; on the contrary, in places like Iyire and Kudo, monocrop farmers are among the poorest people (Appendix 1). Once again, the complex fabric of Torit is confirmed, whereby some communities show signs of market dynamics and opportunities of livelihood activities not related to farming, while other areas follow common dynamics of subsistence farming. The widespread farming of vegetables, as per what was reported in January, is also necessary to take into consideration.
ECONOMY 36
Number of types of cultivation Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Only 1 (monocrop) 14% 13% 10% 17% 18% 0% 10% 17% 5% 12% Only 2 29% 53% 21% 15% 30% 19% 17% 7% 12% 22%
Any vegetable 55% 26% 65% 58% 35% 50% 63% 79% 52% 52% Fruit 14% 0% 10% 8% 3% 16% 10% 24% 14% 10%
The crop that most contributes to the farmers’ livelihood is sorghum, except in Iyire, where maize is deemed as the most important staple food. When asked about the seeds they would prefer to receive, however, families provide a variety of answers – okra, onion, beans, and tomatoes the most common (not shown).
3 most important cultivations for livelihood COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Sorgum Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Maize Nyong Himodonge Groundnuts Bur Ifwotu 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Upgrading farming (farmer groups, communal farming, agronomic practices, inputs and capital)
To provide effective support to farmers, it is important to distinguish them by their ability to produce above subsistence levels, supplying the market, and eventually engage in business farming. Making such a distinction is not an easy task in South Sudan, as it is not sufficient to review the share of produce sold versus that consumed. In fact, it is not uncommon for worse-off families to sell a larger than average share of their produce to the market out of necessity, and not as a profitable orientation to the market (there is indeed evidence of this in Torit county too, see below). It is therefore necessary to juxtapose the analysis of poverty (end of Chapter 3 and Appendix 1) with the analysis of the market orientation of farmers to differentiate those who choose to sell to the market as a result of a deliberate livelihood strategy of specialization, and those doing so as a coping strategy.
When trying to identify the most successful farmers, beside the size of the land cultivated, the first element to be reviewed is their membership in an association. As revealed in Chapter 3, farmer groups supported by NGOs do not show average food security levels, informal farmer groups show rather bad food security levels, and members of seed multiplication groups unequivocally show good levels of food security. The latter group is less numerous, only 7% is part of a seed multiplication group across Torit county, although there is a significant presence in Kudo, where 13% of farmers is associated in one of them. In general, there are marked differences among communities when it comes to overall farmer association, whereby Kudo and Torit Town show very high levels, Iyire and Lowoi follow suit, and other communities such as, Hiyalla and Bur show markedly low levels of association – possibly a reflection of the semi-nomadic habits of those two communities.
ECONOMY 37
Membership in association/group COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Farmer group supported by NGO Informal group of farmers Women/Church/Youth/Self-help/income generation group; CBOs Common Interest group/Seed Multiplication group Others Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA) Cooperative/SME Income Generation Association group (IGA) No association
Everywhere in Torit, farmer associations are relatively recent, suggesting the possible disruption of many older associations as a result of the conflicts of 2016. In Iyire, farmer associations seems more deeply-rooted. The weak state of association in Hiyalla and Bur is confirmed by the figures showing the percentage of farmer groups recorded by county officials – albeit there are cases of farmer groups recognized by payam administrators.
Robustness of farmer groups Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
Average membership (years) 2.5 2.4 2.9 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.1 3.6 4.1 2.6 # of HHs associated 20 13 17 19 21 19 24 28 24 21 Recorded by county or payam 54% 21% 62% 57% 19% 31% 53% 30% 54% 46% official % who report the presence of three or more farmer 36% 28% 13% 34% 18% 9% 12% 32% 56% 29% association per village % of leaders/board members 23% 29% 29% 39% 31% 15% 32% 20% 35% 31% vs simple members
The other aspect that is commonly identified is that the most successful farmers participate in communal farming, larger-than-average sized land which allows them to profit from some economy of scale. As already shown, it is not uncommon for farmers to work on communal land in Torit county – around one third of farmers does so.
Land regarded most farmers Use of produce farmed in common land Consumed it important for with COUNTY livelihood (private vs common Iyire Sold it to get money common land) land Lowoi What is cultivated in Kudo 47% the PRIVATE land Imurok Saved in the form of BOTH cultivations are Hiyalla 4% seeds important Nyong What is cultivated in Exchanged for animals to 50% Himodonge the COMMON land Bur eat Ifwotu Exchanged for animals to 0% 100% 200% 300% breed
ECONOMY 38
It is evident that communal farming is important for those who engage in it; in fact, for them such farming is even more important than that conducted in private fields. There is also evidence that the produce obtained through the farming in common lands is used in a more “productive” way, as self-consumption is only one of the purposes that it serves. Moreover, when the produce is sold the revenues are rarely used for the acquisition of basic food, rather the payment of school fees and medications is more common. That some is used to pay workers, is an indication of a presence of an economy of scale that permits the hiring of extra manpower.
Use of cash obtained through the sale of produce farmed in communal land School fees / medication COUNTY Agricultural inputs / Iyire Payment for labourers Lowoi Nutrient-rich food Kudo Imurok Basic food Hiyalla Nyong Farmer Group Saving Himodonge Bur Clothing Ifwotu Soap/Oil 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
It is crucial to understand the role of the so called “ancestral landlord” for it is often this person’s role to decide what crop is cultivated and to ensure that people participate in the communal work.
Leader coordinating the communal farming, including deciding the crop to plant COUNTY Iyire Lowoi A simple community Kudo member Imurok Hiyalla Nyong The ancestral Himodonge landlord Bur Ifwotu
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The adoption of basic agronomic practices should also help to identify the most productive farmers. Unfortunately, the results obtained are not much revealing, as the largest majority of farmers report to know and adopt the main farming practices, making it impossible to identify the best farmers based on this criterion (crop rotation and intercropping being the most common planting practices; busing clearance and timely weeding the most common farming practices; mulching the most common water and soil conservation practice – none shown in the tables). 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 as a result 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.
ECONOMY 39
Conversely, the farmers not adopting or being aware of farming practices seem to be at a disadvantage (20% more likely to have a “poor” FCS). In particular, the communities with the worse food consumption conditions – Lowoi, Imurok and Ifwotu – are those where farming practices are less adopted and/or known.
Disregard/unawareness of basic Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY agronomic practices Not familiar with any specific 3% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 3% 3% 0% 1% planting practice Not familiar with any specific 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% farming practice Not familiar with soil & water 30% 18% 17% 9% 18% 29% 7% 21% 20% 17% conservation practice Familiar with agricultural practices 70% 83% 83% 90% 80% 71% 90% 76% 80% 81% in each of the 3 domains
Being aware of seed quality and suitability with local agronomic conditions is another important aspect that should help to distinguish the most productive farmers. In Torit, generally, farmers using improved seeds do not show better results in term of food security (see Chapter 3 and Annex 1; indeed there is not a significant variation in terms of food security results among farmers using purchased, NGO distributed, or other sort of seeds – data not shown); however, it is interesting to notice that in Torit Town, where there seems to be better knowledge on seed variety, the farmers using improved seeds seem to show better food security conditions.
Knowledge on seed variety Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
Aware of seeds variety 57% 58% 55% 80% 53% 63% 63% 66% 64% 63% Farmers employing prime quality 32% 25% 40% 51% 31% 43% 40% 34% 24% 36% seeds
The purchase of tools and seeds is also not revealing, for a large portion of farmers buy them rather than producing them at home. Interestingly Iyire, possibly the most fertile area of Torit County, receives the least support in terms of NGOs seeds distribution.
Source of basic agricultural inputs Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY and of seeds Shop in town 100% 80% 82% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 94% 93% From community members 17% 40% 64% 76% 73% 83% 82% 90% 88% 72% Sellers who pass by 17% 0% 27% 65% 27% 33% 18% 50% 24% 31% No purchase of inputs or tools/ you 0% 0% 0% 12% 9% 17% 18% 30% 6% 10% produce them by yourself SEEDS - Own stocks 60% 88% 83% 68% 87% 84% 93% 97% 95% 83% SEEDS - Purchase 57% 55% 59% 52% 55% 58% 60% 45% 42% 53% SEEDS - Gifts 3% 23% 28% 22% 30% 23% 17% 34% 19% 22% SEEDS - NGOs 13% 18% 34% 30% 22% 10% 20% 38% 8% 21%
It is not uncommon to hire casual workers or community members (for a price that ranges from 400 in Torit Town to 200 SSP per kattala of land worked) – a sign of the viability of resorting more decisively to incentives-for-work schemes. However, it should be emphasized that while the hiring of casual workers or contracting community members in exchange for money, is generally reported by farmers that enjoy very good food security condition.
ECONOMY 40
The employment of community members in exchange for food, or on a reciprocal basis, does not seem to be equally beneficial (data not shown). This one-third of farmers who enjoy a good food security condition and hire day workers or pay community members to help them farming seem to therefore show the characteristics of genuinely market oriented farmers, who choose to sell to the market out of a deliberate livelihood strategy.
% of HHs employing labour beside Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY family members No use of labor 17% 15% 17% 14% 18% 19% 30% 34% 27% 20%
Community members, in exchange 70% 73% 79% 57% 72% 68% 70% 66% 68% 68% for food Community members, on a 27% 35% 34% 30% 43% 55% 47% 52% 42% 39% reciprocity basis Community members, in exchange 17% 0% 31% 44% 8% 23% 33% 24% 24% 24% for money Casual Labour (per day) 10% 3% 10% 21% 10% 13% 10% 10% 10% 12%
The most common tasks of these workers are weeding, planting, harvesting and to a lesser extent, plowing.
Weeding Function of additional labour Planting Harvesting Land plowing and preparation Livestock care Selling crops Livestock sale 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% Other uses
Lending, either money or assets, is a rather common practice in Torit county. Still, virtually all those who have borrowed money say that they were lent money from a friend or relative (data not shown). Moreover, it is very uncommon for people to use the money borrowed to invest in their business – most commonly loans are used to cover immediate basic needs.
Borrowing experience and Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY capacity (% of HHs) Never borrowed money 57% 58% 55% 46% 60% 39% 50% 48% 39% 50% Never borrowed assets 77% 70% 62% 60% 57% 48% 60% 48% 53% 59% Capable of having 200 USD lent if 10% 10% 14% 21% 13% 7% 10% 10% 14% 13% needed
Finally, it should be noted that the capacity of borrowing conspicuous amounts of money, around $200, does not seem to be per se advantageous, as it is shown by the fact that the FCS of farmers enjoying such capacity does not differ from the county average -- not shown).
Use of borrowed money Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Health (medicine, treatments) 23% 23% 24% 33% 23% 32% 33% 24% 37% 29% Immediate Basic Needs (food, 30% 28% 31% 40% 30% 42% 33% 41% 37% 35% clothes) Education (fees, uniforms, books) 10% 8% 0% 28% 12% 23% 23% 14% 25% 18% Productive (Set up business, buy 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% fertilizer)
ECONOMY 41
Market-oriented farming
Fostering the farming production oriented to markets is one of the main objectives pursued by agricultural projects. The problem is that, in a context like South Sudan, pursuing this objective is as much elusive as attempting to identify the farmers most fitted for commercial farming. This is 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 thus producing for self-consumption: virtually every farmer does both – and the spectrum of farmers selling to the market varies from those engaging in pure commercial farming to those underselling few items just to cover urgently needed goods (drugs for a sick person, for instance). Moreover, even among those selling part of their produce to the market, the large majority still regards farming first and foremost as an activity aimed at feeding their family members, and possibly relatives. In addition, it should be kept in mind that in Torit the share of people engaging in bartering rather than pure sale in the market is remarkable; for instance, the farmers who seem to value their communal farming the most are those who use its product to exchange produce for animals.
% of HHs who All farmers Using common Using common Bartering common Bartering common Exchanging cultivate communal with common land yields for land yields for land yields for land yields for common land land land self-consumption seed production animals to eat animals to breed yields for money What is cultivated in 47% 46% 85% 67% 70% 54% the PRIVATE land BOTH cultivations are 4% 2% 6% 33% 30% 5% important What is cultivated in 50% 52% 9% 100% 100% 41% the COMMON land
% of HHs who cultivate communal Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY land What is cultivated in the PRIVATE 50% 50% 64% 41% 9% 25% 55% 70% 59% 47% land BOTH cultivations are important 17% 10% 9% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 4% What is cultivated in the COMMON 33% 40% 27% 59% 91% 67% 45% 30% 41% 50% land
Finally, it should be remembered that the circulation of food in form of gifts is quite common, representing an amount equal to around two-third of what is exchanged in the market.
% Use of produce Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Consumed in the household 83% 84% 83% 82% 85% 84% 85% 87% 84% 84% Given out for free 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% Sold to the market 12% 10% 12% 13% 8% 14% 11% 10% 14% 11%
Total exchanged 17% 15% 17% 18% 12% 17% 16% 13% 18% 16%
% of families who sell some 67% 75% 83% 62% 65% 81% 77% 76% 93% 74% farming produce
By juxtaposing the share of produce averagely sold by families and the share of families who sell at all in the markets, Iyire should be regarded as a community inclined to the sale of farming products, followed by Imurok and Himodonge. On the other side, Hiyalla is the place where families less commonly sell their produce (these findings are confirmed by the analysis on market access reported in Chapter 10).
ECONOMY 42
Finally, it is crucial to review the propensity to exchange and sell in the market of the different groups of farmers identified in this chapter.
1) It is confirmed that the smallholder and monocrop farmers tend to sell the least to the market, while those engaged in communal farming and hiring workers or contracting community members in exchange for money are those who sell the greatest share of their produce. 2) By also taking into consideration the food security conditions of the different groups of farmers, moreover, the duality of the market orientation of farmers is confirmed: among the most engaged in sales to the market are farmers with a good food security conditions such as those employing workers – they are farmers who chose to sell to the market out of a specialization livelihood strategy – and farmers with a rather poor food security condition such as those associated in informal farmer groups – are those who sell to the market in order to cover basic expenses, following a sort of coping strategy approach. Conversely, among the farmers who sell the least, there are well-off families, such as those with an acceptable FCS or members of a seed multiplication group.
COUNTY % of produce sold or given out by including Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY type of farmer given for free
All farmers 12% 10% 12% 13% 8% 14% 11% 10% 14% 11.4% 16%
Cultivating one crop only 5% 3% 8% 7% 11% n/a 7% 0% 2% 6.2% 9% Smallholder (only less than 1ha of 11% 10% 11% 11% 8% 7% 0% 11% 11% 9.8% 14% private land) Household with acceptable FCS 13% 9% 10% 14% 8% 11% 11% 9% 13% 10.6% 15% Member of a seed multiplication n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 11.1% 21% group Employing a wide set of 12% 9% 11% 13% 7% 16% 12% 10% 14% 11.5% 16% agricultural practices Employing causal labour n/a n/a n/a 9% 5% n/a n/a n/a 20% 11.6% 18% With 4 or more plots of land n/a n/a n/a n/a 6% 13% 10% 10% 16% 11.8% 16% With more than 1ha of private 9% 10% 10% 17% 8% 16% 13% 8% 14% 11.9% 16% land With ability to borrow $200 n/a n/a n/a 16% 3% n/a n/a n/a 19% 12.7% 18%
Without cattle 10% 11% 17% 15% 8% 16% 8% 10% 14% 12.8% 17% Employing community members in 11% n/a 9% 16% 18% 15% 14% 8% 16% 14.3% 0% exchange for money Member of farmer group 16% 29% 24% 14% 2% 16% 13% 5% 20% 14.4% 20% supported by an NGO Cultivating land in common 18% 9% 17% 17% 8% 15% 15% 12% 18% 14.6% 20% Member of an informal farmer 17% 11% 8% 17% 11% 15% 17% 14% 16% 14.9% 19% group
ECONOMY 43
9. LIVESTOCK FARMING
▪ Mirroring what is observed for agricultural farming, the communities of Torit county show quite distinct levels of engagement in animal husbandry. Cattle keeping is practiced by half of the population in places like Hiyalla and Bur, but rather negligible in places like Ifwotu, Imurok or Iyire. It is important to notice that this activity makes a vital difference as it markedly improves the food security conditions for the owners( and partly of their entire community).Furthermore, it propels a virtuous cycle between agriculture and livestock farmers, who can exchange animal products for crops, increasing the incentive to expand production (even in absence of a good access to market).
Beside farming, animal husbandry is an important livelihood activity, conducted by half of the population of Torit County. It is important to remember that agriculture and animal farming should be 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: Also, cattle keeper communities, who are more accustomed to surviving on their own, do not find it easy to group into famer groups.
Agricultural farming and animal husbandry, also 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. Without the widespread husbandry of cattle in Hiyalla and Bur, for instance, these two communities would have had a below-than-average food security condition. The consumption of milk permits these two communities to have food security levels comparable with the rest of Torit county despite being the place with the most limited agricultural production.
% of HHs with livestock Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
With livestock 37% 60% 62% 33% 60% 45% 70% 62% 41% 50%
Cattle 0% 45% 18% 5% 50% 6% 20% 21% 0% 19% Sheep/goats 27% 45% 29% 9% 37% 39% 50% 48% 29% 32% Ducks/Turkeys/Chickens 30% 40% 44% 31% 20% 39% 53% 45% 32% 34% Pigs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 2% 1%
of which are vaccinated animal 50% 27% 50% 17% 40% 50% 0% 0% 14% 26%
In general, beside Hiyalla and Bur, who are specialized in cattle keeping, Kudo and Lowoi have an important activity related to sheep and goat herding. During dry season, cattle are brought to pasture in Bur, where the main river of Ikwoto turns into large ponds and water points for animals.
Motives underpinning livestock rearing and obstacles to commercial livestock farming
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 including: marriage, self-consumption (often in the context of key social celebrations), and saving. These are as important a motivation as the commercial purpose.
ECONOMY 44
Reason for breeding cattle Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
For marriage 17% 55% 38% 11% 53% 39% 53% 59% 27% 36% Household consumption 20% 33% 34% 23% 32% 39% 57% 52% 32% 33% Commercial purpose/for selling 23% 28% 21% 19% 33% 26% 47% 45% 24% 28% For saving purposes 7% 8% 14% 10% 20% 16% 33% 24% 19% 16% Draught animals/working purposes 0% 0% 0% 1% 5% 0% 3% 0% 2% 2%
It is important to recognize that cattle keepers, as farmers, are composed by rather different groups. One of such difference is that while around two-thirds of families are organized so as to conduct animal husbandry in a coordinated fashion, one-third tends to work independently.
% of HHs with livestock Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
Rearing animals in group (kraal) 45% 83% 78% 62% 86% 57% 80% 61% 55% 71%
By looking at the sale of animals, Hiyalla is confirmed to have a privileged position in animal husbandry, representing one of the main providers of animal products to Torit’s market, followed by Bur, Lowoi and Kudo.
% of HHs with livestock Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
Who have sold livestock 7% 30% 28% 7% 42% 6% 30% 34% 12% 21%
The same than last year 0% 30% 50% 33% 42% 0% 44% 40% 29% 37% This year I sold less 50% 40% 25% 50% 21% 50% 33% 50% 71% 37% This year I sold more 50% 30% 25% 17% 38% 50% 22% 10% 0% 26%
The fact that a large portion of trade of livestock is made with 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, is an indication that commercial farming is still not practiced widely. On the other hand, 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 Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% 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
ECONOMY 45
The fact that a large proportion of animal keepers report to be satisfied with the price of sale suggests that the rearing of animals is a satisfactory occupation, and the sector is rather dynamic. Indeed, in a place like Kudo, where there is a remarkable level of agricultural farming, there could be a virtuous circle in place, where farmers exchange crops for animals and vice versa, that pushes each group toward expanding their scale of operation. Likewise, in Hiyalla, in spite of a limited access to market, there seems to be a dynamic livestock farming.
Reason for chosing that market (for HHs selling livestock) COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 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
Production aspects of livestock farming
% HHs Bur Hiyalla County Overall, milk production is mostly conducted for self-consumption with cattle which 40% 45% 15% purpose: only one-third of families who gather milk, sells it. produce milk However, in the areas where cattle keeping is more widespread, 20% 21% 6% of which sell milk half of the families gathering milk sell it to the community (bearing with goats which n/a n/a 12% in mind that this data was gathered in January, immediately after produce milk of which sell milk n/a n/a 4% the productive rainy season).
With regard to the obstacles to livestock farming, poor animal health seems to be very common, together with limited access to water and grazing pasture.
Obstacles to livestock farming Pest and diseases COUNTY Lack of veterinary services Iyire Lowoi Lack of water Kudo Lack of grazing pastures Imurok Cattle raiding Hiyalla Nyong Insecurity-Conflict Himodonge Others Bur Ifwotu no cutomers 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% Inability to access communal grazing lands
ECONOMY 46
As of January, most animal farming took place near the villages, with the partial exception of cattle herding, which dictates a more nomadic organization.
Location of most of the Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY animals bred Within the village 91% 61% 78% 88% 58% 86% 71% 89% 92% 77% Less than 30 minutes of walk 9% 9% 11% 8% 18% 7% 10% 6% 4% 10% away from the village Several hours of walk away 0% 30% 11% 4% 24% 7% 19% 6% 4% 13% from the village
With animal farming taking place not far from villages, problems related to livestock and agriculture farmers become more frequent.
% of HHs by conflict over Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY resources for farming Water sources used to make 0% 21% 17% 19% 39% 14% 10% 18% 0% 18% animals drink Conflicts between livestock 45% 63% 33% 35% 44% 43% 38% 53% 48% 45% and agricultural production Conflicts with land used for 18% 4% 17% 19% 11% 14% 14% 18% 22% 15% grazing animals None of the above problems 36% 13% 33% 27% 6% 29% 38% 12% 30% 23%
10. ACCESS TO CONSUMER MARKETS, OTHER EXCHANGES and EXPENDITURES
▪ Access to consumer markets does not seem to be constrained altogether, the availability of certain specific products may most likely be a problem. In the communities where people report visiting markets less often, this appears to be more due to the possibility to exchange with community members, especially of crops in return for animal products, than as a result of great distance to markets. Still, families do report that occasionally community members do not have anything of value to offer, a sign of a limited economic specialization and constrained access to markets. Similarly, unavailability of certain products is reported even in Torit town. 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, around half of the population spends more than 75% of their budget on food, a threshold regarded as a sign of economic vulnerability.
As for other aspects related to livelihood, communities across Torit have quite an uneven even access to market, due not only to geographical/accessibility reasons. Households in Hiyalla, for instance, visit markets less often than the families of Iyire, which is a community situated in a poorly connected hilly region at the border with Magwi county. The reasons may be related to the fact that in Hiyalla there is a significant production of both crops and animal products, which reduce the needs to visit the county’s market in Torit Town.
ECONOMY 47
ACCESS TO (CONSUMER) Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY MARKETS 2 times or more per week 67% 18% 34% 83% 9% 42% 40% 21% 26% 40% Once every week 7% 10% 28% 10% 19% 26% 17% 17% 23% 17% Once every 2 weeks 20% 20% 17% 7% 14% 10% 20% 7% 9% 13% Once per moth 0% 35% 17% 0% 45% 19% 23% 41% 33% 23%
Only few times per year 7% 18% 3% 0% 14% 3% 0% 14% 9% 7% hours to reach the market 4 7 4 1 6 4 7 7 5 5
Insecurity is negligible, reported by only 2% of the population. On the contrary, the high price for transportation, along with lack of transportation all together, represent by far the main obstacles to accessing consumer goods.
Main obstacles to reach markets COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No transport to the market Market too far/no time to leave home for such a long time Price for transport is too high No problem Other problems Insecurity/conflict Not sure to find items needed sold in the market Seasonal problems linked to rain/disruption of roads When it comes to the obstacles impeding households from buying, the lack of financial means is by far the main problem. Still, unavailability of goods is a significant problem too, as it is reported across the county, including in the capital, Torit Town.
Main obstacles to BUY in the markets COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% 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
The limited exchanges (barter) among community members, however, suggests that there is also another problem at play: people do not produce goods or services that can be of interest to others, possibly because they tend to
ECONOMY 48
produce the same products. Evidence of this is seen in the fact that the percentage of respondents that report the main problem to be that others do not have much to offer, is high.
How often are goods Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY exchanged among neighbors In the last 2 weeks 14% 13% 11% 0% 5% 0% 3% 7% 7% 6% In the last month 3% 15% 14% 3% 17% 0% 17% 14% 19% 11% It rarely happens 31% 38% 43% 39% 53% 71% 63% 64% 52% 49% It never happens 52% 35% 32% 59% 25% 29% 17% 14% 22% 34%
It is important to note that lack of valuable goods in the community not only constrains consumption but also production. Along with the unavailability of crucial inputs, 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 Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY among neighbors I do not have anything to give 33% 48% 24% 34% 38% 42% 41% 65% 38% 39% to them in exchange They do not have what I need 38% 45% 43% 45% 47% 39% 45% 30% 46% 43% Other reasons 29% 7% 33% 21% 15% 19% 14% 5% 15% 18%
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.
Most commonly purchased items (% of HHs) by categories (food, nonfood, Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY and other goods or services) Cereals (Sorghum, maize, rice, wheat, 60% 60% 59% 73% 52% 68% 60% 45% 39% 58% bread) Oil, fat and butter 50% 38% 41% 62% 22% 23% 30% 14% 24% 36% All other food items (salt, coffee, tea, 23% 15% 24% 28% 23% 29% 30% 38% 37% 28% etc.) Sugar, honey, sweets 37% 15% 21% 42% 12% 10% 23% 7% 17% 22% Meat, fish, eggs and poultry (beef, 17% 15% 17% 35% 13% 6% 13% 3% 8% 16% goat, pork, sheep, game) Vegetables (pumpkins, okra, green 37% 10% 10% 37% 7% 13% 3% 7% 3% 16% leaves etc.)
Soap 90% 95% 86% 86% 88% 74% 77% 72% 69% 83%
Clothing, shoes 47% 58% 48% 49% 43% 39% 37% 41% 42% 46%
Milling and grinding 13% 10% 10% 42% 18% 29% 23% 17% 20% 23%
Tobacco and Alcohol 7% 15% 31% 21% 18% 16% 27% 21% 27% 21%
Transportation/communication/Airtime 10% 0% 10% 38% 8% 3% 3% 3% 7% 13%
Drinks (water and soda water) 7% 3% 3% 41% 5% 0% 3% 3% 5% 12%
Firewood/charcoal/fuel for cooking 10% 0% 0% 33% 2% 3% 17% 3% 7% 11%
ECONOMY 49
Medical expenses, health care 43% 30% 31% 51% 27% 32% 27% 31% 37% 36%
Education, (school fees/uniforms) 47% 15% 28% 59% 32% 29% 33% 28% 25% 35%
Household assets (knives, forks, plates) 20% 25% 34% 27% 37% 23% 3% 17% 24% 25%
Agricultural tools, seeds, Hiring labor 3% 10% 7% 6% 10% 3% 7% 3% 7% 7% Celebrations, social events, funerals, 13% 5% 3% 11% 0% 0% 10% 0% 7% 6% weddings Alive animals (cattle, cow, goat/sheep) 7% 5% 0% 2% 5% 3% 0% 10% 2% 4%
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 around half the population spends more than 75% on food purchases, an evident indicator of economic vulnerability. The economic vulnerability of families in Imurok and Kudo is very significant.
Monthly average expenses Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
On food 14,814 17,600 15,331 30,778 20,563 24,571 22,815 22,603 12,931 21,574 On non-food items 7,650 5,626 4,358 8,501 4,870 3,736 6,645 4,619 3,446 6,034 On Services 2,022 1,755 1,042 2,898 1,802 4,053 1,225 2,305 1,200 2,116
% of HHs spending more than 35% 52% 47% 39% 50% 64% 69% 50% 43% 47% 75% for food
11. PRODUCTIVE ASSETS, ENERGY and NON-FOOD ITEMS (NFIs)
Reviewing housing arrangements in Torit shows that, contrary to what occurs in other places, virtually everyone is a home owner. Only around one-fifth of the population in Torit renting. The general condition of housing is far from optimum, albeit better than in other counties; almost half of the dwellings require substantial improvement to be deemed safe and stable shelter. Moreover, almost half of the population does not have a kitchen area and thus cooks in the same room where they sleep, a practice considered unhealthy. One-fifth of the population also sleeps side-by-side with an animal.
Housing conditions Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
Owned house 83% 85% 97% 74% 100% 97% 96% 100% 98% 91% Hosted 10% 10% 3% 5% 0% 3% 4% 0% 2% 4% Renting or working to stay 7% 5% 0% 21% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%
Safe shelter (may need small 70% 50% 48% 69% 48% 45% 38% 41% 46% 53% repairs) Unsafe no stable 30% 50% 52% 31% 52% 55% 62% 59% 54% 47%
Without separate room for animals 27% 15% 31% 6% 12% 23% 3% 21% 29% 17% (where it applies) Cooking in the sleeping/leaving 50% 63% 38% 15% 42% 48% 45% 66% 44% 41% room
ECONOMY 50
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, which is particularly important given its contribution to personal hygiene.
% of HHs with utensils Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Beds 37% 23% 21% 83% 48% 19% 47% 21% 14% 40% Blankets 40% 31% 34% 51% 48% 42% 43% 38% 37% 42% Water containers 73% 80% 79% 94% 80% 73% 93% 83% 76% 82% Stove/Kanun 37% 30% 32% 63% 35% 32% 37% 34% 33% 40% Sponge mattress 50% 23% 28% 81% 41% 32% 47% 24% 12% 41% Tables/Chairs 40% 21% 29% 81% 37% 27% 48% 17% 14% 39%
With regard to productive goods, generally called assets, it is remarkable to see the widespread possession of key instruments such as fishing kits or engine run grinding machines, but the near absence of ox-plough or tractors is also noticeable.
% of HHs with productive assets Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Spade/Axe 37% 45% 52% 48% 42% 29% 43% 52% 44% 44% Cell phone 33% 10% 17% 84% 33% 10% 20% 24% 14% 34% Engine-run grinding machine less 17% 18% 10% 58% 50% 33% 31% 25% 15% 33% than 30 minutes away Grain grinding tool 37% 33% 31% 21% 33% 26% 30% 31% 29% 29% Fishing kit 23% 28% 18% 12% 32% 3% 7% 0% 8% 16% Bicycle 7% 8% 3% 40% 2% 13% 23% 0% 3% 14% Cash/Saving 10% 0% 0% 29% 2% 10% 14% 10% 4% 10% Motorcycle/vehicle 3% 0% 3% 20% 3% 10% 10% 3% 2% 7% Wheelbarrow 7% 0% 0% 28% 2% 0% 7% 0% 2% 7% Electricity 3% 3% 0% 13% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 4% Generator 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 7% 0% 5% 3% Ox-plough 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 3% 0% 2% 1% Sewing machine 0% 0% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Tractor 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
12. HUMANITARIAN & DEVELOPMENT AID
The review of the distribution and composition of humanitarian support shows first and foremost the little support channeled to the southern section of the county, particularly Imurok, Ifwotu and Iyire. The neglect of this latter payam is particularly unfortunate given its climatic conditions and its strong and wide engagement in farming, including the farming of nutrient rich food easy to transport. On the other hand, the people of Torit Town, who are the least engaged in farming, in spite of their numerosity, receive proportionally much more agricultural support. Similarly, nutritional support goes to the payams with the best food security conditions.
ECONOMY 51
Humanitarian assistance over the last year COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% Agricultural inputs i.e. seeds Agricultural tools Health /medicines Nutrition (e.g. Blanket supplementary feeding, etc) Food distribution Food in the Schools Advise from extension service Food in exchange for work Non Food Items (kitchen sets, blankets, Khanga) Veterinary service
The same impressive unequal coverage is visible with reference to technical training programmes. Moreover, it should be noticed that general trainings have a rather significant scope, involving more than 20% of the population, whereas more structured training such as one-year vocational training, which may support not only the direct benefit but also the general upgrade of the local economy, involves only a very limited number of people.
Techincal and Vocational Education and Training over the last year COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 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
Up to 2018 AVSI’s activities in Torit were circumscribed to education, mostly in Torit Town. Only recently, AVSI began to implement food security projects across the county. Its actions mimic the coverage of the overall humanitarian system, something which represents an obvious opportunity for improvement going forward.
ECONOMY 52
AVSI community engagement COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%
Although the level of communication with the community on beneficiary selection seems better than in other places, there is still need to improve, especially in the most remote payams such as Iyire and Imurok.
Communication and transparency Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY
%HHs with clear knowledge over the criteria 23% 28% 31% 46% 27% 16% 46% 28% 17% 30% applied for the selection of beneficiaries
ECONOMY 53
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
Contrary to expectation, conflicts in Torit county do not seem to have a large scope and are related to the management of natural resources, rather than “OUR COUNTY PEACE RESPONSE caused by major offences (although, crimes are rather recurrent – see Chapter MECHANISM, PUT IN PLACE WITH 14). The northern area of the county – comprising of Lowoi, Kudo and Bur – are THE SUPPORT OF CRS, AT LEAST places to observe more carefully. In Himodonge there is evidence of some specific IN KUDO, HAS FUNCTIONED problems related to the unregulated cutting of trees, and in Ifwotu, where clashes QUITE WELL!” between government and opposition forces were fiercer, there are tensions over Representative from kudo payam land property rights that the population expect to increase in the future.
Conflicts over water and land Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY % of HHs aware of conflicts over 23% 25% 10% 16% 23% 19% 17% 24% 15% 19% water and land # of disputes during the last 3 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 months
Control over water is by far the most common source of dispute, whether at the irrigation system level or for fetching water from boreholes. Uncontrolled bush burning is another source of conflict, particularly acute in the area of Kudo and Imurok. Moreover, it should be considered that a significant number of people left Imurok in the last 12 months due to insecurity – see chapter 16).
Source of disputes Use of water source COUNTY Bush burning Iyire Land boundary conflicts Lowoi Livestock grazing on crops Kudo Conflict involving women Imurok Stealing of crops and livestock Hiyalla Cutting of trees Nyong Other Himodonge Land grabbing and selling Animal raiding crops Bur Inappropriate sale of land Ifwotu Cattle routes related 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% Land inheritance conflicts
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 Himodonge, there is a specific problem, which is caused by individuals outside of the community.
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 54
Groups reportedly fighting Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY (who benefited from the dispute) Not sure who profited 71% 70% 67% 62% 86% 83% 60% 71% 67% 72% Some members of our village 29% 20% 0% 38% 14% 17% 40% 29% 33% 26% Some unknown people from other 14% 10% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 11% 7% villages Some important well-known 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% person from another village
The analysis of communities’ capacity to solve problems confirms the issue surrounding the cutting of trees in Himodonge. On the contrary, it reveals that in Kudo there is a rather successful system of conflict management, whereby community members notify administrative county personnel who step in to increase the number of people working toward a sensible and peaceful solution to the conflict.
Conflict Resolution performance COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 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
Looking ahead, people are concerned that conflicts may continue or even increase in Ifwotu. Bur is also confirmed to be a place of high risk.
% of HHs by likelihood of increase Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY of conflicts Unlikely to continue/increase 43% 60% 67% 42% 57% 83% 40% 57% 33% 52% More or less stable 14% 0% 33% 42% 43% 17% 60% 29% 67% 34% Likely to continue/increase 43% 40% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 14%
Commonly, boma and head/executive chiefs – i.e. traditional leaders – are those who address disputes.
% of HHs by type of leader who Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY helps solving disputes Nyampara 71% 60% 67% 62% 79% 50% 80% 57% 78% 68% Sub chief - Mukungu 71% 70% 33% 46% 57% 50% 80% 57% 78% 61% Boma chief 57% 30% 33% 38% 71% 33% 80% 57% 67% 53% Head Chief 43% 20% 67% 46% 36% 33% 40% 29% 44% 38% Ancestral Headman - Landlord 0% 10% 33% 23% 36% 50% 0% 57% 11% 24% Payam Administrator 43% 0% 33% 31% 36% 0% 20% 29% 11% 23% Religious leader 14% 0% 0% 15% 21% 17% 20% 14% 0% 12%
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 55
14. SAFETY and CRIMES
Though there seems to be no report of major conflicts, crimes are not THEFTS OF FEW CATTLE AT THE TIME, NOT so infrequent. The most frequent are: crimes against property, cattle REAL ACTS OF CATTLE RAIDING, IS WHAT raiding (especially during rain seasons when animal herds are closer to OCCURS IN BUR AND HIYALLA, AND IT OFTEN villages), and, in Kudo and Lowoi, the abduction of people (reported by INVOLVES PEOPLE FROM THE SAME ETHNIC 25% of the population). GROUP FROM NEARBY VILLAGES. Representatives from Bur and Hiyalla payam
Types of hazard and crimes experienced in the last year COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% Theft Verbal threat House breaking Theft of livestock Burned house Abduction or disappearance of family member Physical attack/assault Murder Land grabbing/dispossession Sexual assault or rape Serious physical harm to child Witchcraft
Still, it is unanimously reported across Torit that security situation was worse a year ago.
HHs’ opinion over the overall Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY trend on hazards Before it was worse 88% 92% 93% 96% 90% 96% 93% 89% 94% 93%
It is getting worse in the last period 12% 8% 7% 4% 10% 4% 7% 11% 6% 7%
However, In Ifwotu, people are quite concerned: one-third of the population does not feel safe in their village nor in other areas of the county.
Safety perception (% of HHs who Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY feel safe) In the village 62% 90% 89% 94% 90% 94% 93% 79% 88% 88% Reaching the town/market 63% 78% 93% 98% 87% 90% 87% 72% 83% 85%
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 56
15. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION and LOCAL GOVERNANCE
▪ Compared to other communities (like Ikwoto in EES) in Torit there is a noticeable level of reciprocal support and a habit of community contribution (Bur and Ifwotu being the communities lagging behind). Somehow surprising, in Torit, including in the main town, traditional leaders undertake almost all main function of government (such as coordinating community works and meetings, solving disputes – see Chapter 13 -- and abuse – see Chapter 7). More in general, families have minor interactions with local
leaders, let alone government officials, almost a negligible minority is employed in public bodies.
▪ Mutual help is a key dynamic in a context like South Sudan. In Torit, the majority of families exchange gifts with (approximately twice as common compared to the close by Ikwoto county or the further away Cueibet). In Ifwotu, where crime is alarmingly widespread and land disputes are common, gift exchange is less frequent. Exchange of gifts among community members COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 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
Mutual-help is often exercised in the context of defined family relations -- which often overlaps with income generation associations -- rather than as a result of sheer generosity. Family relationships, for instance, are the most frequent factor bounding together associations, the simple geographical proximity among community members plays a negligible role. It is worth noticing sharing is a bonding factor in Himodonge and Hiyalla. Overall, organization in associations is markedly low in Bur and Hiyalla, two communities of semi-nomad cattle keepers.
Membership in association and Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY reason holding the group % of HHs associated in self- 43% 35% 48% 69% 27% 42% 63% 69% 63% 52% help/income generation groups
Family/personal relationships 62% 21% 57% 75% 63% 92% 79% 80% 86% 72% Sharing of land 46% 29% 29% 52% 44% 77% 74% 95% 76% 60% Share of inputs, tools, seeds 31% 21% 86% 41% 81% 77% 68% 45% 59% 54% Mutual help 38% 36% 29% 45% 19% 38% 47% 50% 38% 40% Living close to each other 38% 29% 36% 20% 25% 31% 32% 20% 38% 28% Other reasons 0% 14% 0% 13% 0% 8% 11% 5% 5% 7%
Participation in community work is not widespread, with the noticeable exception of Torit Town (Nyong). Traditional leaders have a key role in the coordination of community works.
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 57
Participation to community works during Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY the last 12 months and leadership % of HHs who contributed to community 40% 28% 41% 61% 40% 27% 37% 25% 25% 39% work Nyampara 13% 20% 31% 41% 32% 16% 27% 17% 24% 27% Sub chief - Mukungu 17% 5% 10% 37% 13% 6% 17% 10% 8% 16% Boma chief 13% 8% 10% 22% 18% 16% 13% 10% 10% 15% Others 3% 5% 7% 10% 13% 0% 3% 7% 5% 7% Teachers 7% 3% 3% 5% 7% 0% 3% 3% 5% 4% Payam Administrator 3% 5% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 7% 5% 3%
In kind or monetary contributions to community activities is also common, though less so in Bur and Ifwotu.
Contribution (in kind or monetary) to community activity COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 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
Community meetings occur frequently and involve a considerable section of the population. Concerns related to access and management of water and education are by far the most discussed issues in all communities. Confirming data presented in the previous chapter, security issues are equally often debated among community members in Ifwotu.
Call of public meeting and issues Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY discussed % of HHs aware of public meeting in 52% 53% 48% 55% 57% 42% 43% 48% 55% 52% the last 3 months
Water 33% 52% 64% 75% 82% 85% 77% 71% 66% 69% Education 33% 52% 50% 80% 68% 77% 69% 64% 81% 68% Security 33% 5% 0% 43% 35% 31% 38% 36% 38% 32% Others 27% 19% 36% 20% 18% 23% 23% 14% 16% 21% Employment 7% 5% 0% 25% 6% 15% 8% 21% 13% 13% Cattle issues 0% 38% 0% 5% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% Land issues 33% 10% 14% 7% 15% 0% 0% 7% 6% 10%
Local leaders play an important role in chairing community meetings, as do NGOs and, notably, government officials. Attendance rate is similar regardless of who calls for the meeting (data not shown).
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 58
Who called for the community meeting? COUNTY Local clan leader Iyire Lowoi NGO Kudo Imurok Government official Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Other person Bur Ifwotu Religious leader 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%
Finally, the analysis of community meeting attendance shows that participation is rather high, though at times meetings may not be open to everybody.
Participation to community meeting Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY and reason for not attendance % of HHs who attended 80% 62% 93% 98% 94% 85% 77% 79% 84% 86%
Not invited* 0% 63% 0% 100% 0% 50% 100% 50% 60% 52% Not informed* 100% 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 0% 50% 20% 30% No time to attend* 0% 13% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% My opinion is not listened* 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% *These estimates are based on 27 responses only; payam level data should not be considered a reference
The role of the 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.
Interaction with local leaders over the last three months Nyampara or Mukungu COUNTY Sector leader Iyire Lowoi Landlord Kudo Imurok Opinion leader Hiyalla Nyong Chairman of farmer groups Himodonge supported by NGO Bur Chairman of informal farmer Ifwotu groups Administrative authority 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Finally, by looking at the direct participation of community members in the different types and levels of the government, especially when comparing data with areas as different as Cueibet and Ikwoto, it is surprising to notice the little involvement that people have in public bodies, especially in administrative authorities.
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 59
Direct participation of HHs in government or public/community bodies No particular role COUNTY Teacher Iyire Nyampara or Mukungu Lowoi Kudo Sector leader Imurok Landlord Hiyalla Nyong Administrative authority Himodonge Chairman or committee member of Bur informal farmer group Ifwotu Opinion leader Chairman of committee member of a formal 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%farmer group supported by NGO
16. MIGRATION and IDPs
▪ In 2018, the movement of people described a situation of “stabilization”, whereby the number of people arriving or relocating matched the number of people departing, leaving the total population substantially unchanged. Among the positive factors, is the return of around 2500 refugees (people who previously reported living in another country). What can also be considered positive, is that the majority of people who relocated to Torit county, did so in Torit Town – whereas previously people tended to relocate to the countryside. However, it must also be noted that half of the people who decided to leave behind their family members did so due to insecurity and hunger. Finally, there is anecdotal evidence that the lack of financial means to return is one of the reasons why refugees in the camps are not coming back more decisively.
% of HHs by migration status and # Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY of IDP/Returnees HHs Natives residents (continuously 80% 73% 72% 41% 85% 84% 77% 86% 83% 72% since birth) Natives returned 7% 10% 14% 10% 7% 10% 7% 7% 10% 9% Relocated 13% 18% 14% 49% 8% 6% 17% 7% 7% 19%
Returned /relocated more than 12 20% 28% 28% 52% 15% 13% 23% 14% 12% 25% months ago: former IDP/Returnee Returned /relocated over the last 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 3% 12 months: IDP/Returnee HHs
# of HHs IDP/Returnee* 0 0 0 880 0 55 0 0 238 969 # of IDP/Returnee people** 0 0 0 5,280 0 327 0 0 1,430 5,816
% of IDPs vs Total IDPs and 67% 56% 20% 83% 50% 40% 71% 0% 40% 64% Relocated *Based on a total population of 35,000 HHs (RRC Torit). Figures are based on estimations and should not be taken as verified. Assumed 6 people per HH.
The number of entire households of IDPs/Returnees (entire families who have returned to their place of origin, were displaced, or simply opted to relocate over the last 12 months) is estimated to be roughly 1,000 households (6,000 people), mostly located in Torit Town.16 Most payams are largely composed of native residents who have
16 The total number of IDP/Returnee people 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).
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 60
spent their entire life in their communities; the only exception is Torit Town, where only 40% of families where born and have resided interruptedly in the city.
As many people who recently relocated chose to move to Torit town, the geographical distribution of people within Torit county is becoming increasingly urban.
Pevious residence of current and former IDPs and Returnees returned more than 1 year ago returned less than 1 year ago relocated/displaced more than 1 year ago relocated/displaced less than 1 year ago Country side Town City 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Albeit the number of entire households of IDPs/Returnees is limited, it should be noticed that half of them relocated against their will, trying to escape insecurity.
Reason for returnig/relocating over the last 12 months COUNTY 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Avoiding conflict/insecurity Seeking better economic opportunity Dispute with neighbors Hunger in the previous place of living
What is also of interest is that, historically – based on the people who relocated more than one year ago –, individuals who fled from insecurity did not used to go to Torit Town. Now that there tends to be greater relocation to the capital suggests a reversal of trend, where Torit Town is perceived to be more secure than other areas.
Main reason for returning/relocating over the last Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY 12 months Seeking better economic 33% 11% 20% 38% 63% 50% 29% 0% 29% 34% opportunity Avoiding conflict/insecurity 33% 56% 40% 13% 13% 25% 57% 0% 57% 27% Accessing better services like 0% 11% 0% 35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% school, health care
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 12,000, hosted by around 3,800 local families. This may very likely represent an overestimation due to a habit of reporting the presence of IDPs in seeking support. Still, the numbers are small enough to confirm a level of human dislocation not particularly high, lower compared to previous years.
% of HHs Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY Hosting IDPs (people arrived in the 7% 8% 10% 16% 2% 23% 3% 17% 14% 11% last 12 months) # of HHs hosting IDPs 138 236 221 1,827 80 382 79 337 636 3,782 average # of IDPs per hosting HH 8 3 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 total # of IDPs hosted by local HH 1,034 708 516 5,201 239 1,199 158 1,350 1,827 12,137
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 61
Moreover, a large section of these individual IDPs/Returnees is comprised of people relocating from close-by areas within the state of Torit, many of whom may have simply chosen to move out. Finally, around one-fifth of these people reportedly coming from other countries are likely returnees coming back from the refugee camps.
Place of origin of IDPs/Returnees Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY people Person from the same village who 0% 33% 33% 23% 0% 14% 0% 0% 13% 16% moved away and recently returned From a town or payams not too far 50% 67% 33% 23% 0% 43% 0% 80% 63% 44% away (one or two days of walk) From a far community within the 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 100% 20% 0% 9% same state or Jangle From another state (not Jangle) of 0% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 12% South Sudan
From another country (returnees) 0% 0% 33% 23% 100% 29% 0% 0% 13% 19%
Shifting the focus of the analysis to the outflow of people over the last 12 months, it is estimated that 19,000 individuals did so whether as entire families or as individuals hosted by local households (it is important to be cautious with these numbers due to the possibility of an overestimation of departures). An equal number of arrival and departure suggests the stabilization of overall conditions.
% of HHs Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY whose members have migrated in the 23% 13% 17% 25% 18% 29% 23% 17% 19% 21% last 12 months Average % of members who left 46% 39% 31% 28% 21% 49% 44% 31% 32% 35%
Average # of family members who left 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
Total members who migrated 1,640 1,114 663 6,410 1,627 1,695 1,656 868 2,986 18,954
Even the reasons for people’s departure confirms a situation of stabilization. Half left out of a desire to do so. Lack of security or hunger is reported by 40% of people. Imurok is the only place that shows forced displacement.
Reason for migrating (leaving) to another area COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur Ifwotu 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other reasons Family reasons Lack of employment Lack of security Hunger
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 62
APPENDIX 1 – Poverty profiling
Poverty profiling based on Food Consumption Score
% of HHs with "poor" FCS by key Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY groups Average for the total population 39% 14% 32% 6% 20% 39% 23% 39% 16% 21% of Torit Without cattle 50% 29% 56% 7% 36% 47% 33% 50% 18% 28% Cultivating only one crop 50% 0% 33% 0% 9% n/a 67% 60% 67% 24% Not applying agricultural practices 44% 33% 60% 0% 36% 33% 0% 33% 0% 26% in the 3 domains Smallholders (less than 1 Ha of 38% 15% 56% 8% 36% 22% 25% 43% 20% 26% private land only) With small private land (less than 39% 14% 32% 6% 20% 39% 23% 39% 16% 21%
1 ha) but cultivating in common Cultivating land in common 25% 10% 11% 0% 8% 25% 18% 30% 24% 16% Cultivating land in common for EXPECTED n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 23% self-consumption Agricultural inputs bought with cash provided by livelihood n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 14% activity Employing casual labour 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 17% 7% Employing ox-plough n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0% Member of a seed multiplication 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% group
With elderly 50% 0% 14% 13% 27% 60% 0% 63% 23% 26%
Widow or woman with no n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 27%
support WORTH
NOTICING More than 4 family member 0% 0% 20% 0% 23% 0% 22% 60% 9% 16% cultivating IDP/Returnees n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 10%
Hosting orphans 31% 7% 25% 16% 10% 33% 20% 50% 20% 21%
Bartered what obtained with 50% 18% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 13% 13% main livelihood activity Consuming what obtained with 40% 10% 21% 2% 16% 39% 40% 50% 12% 21% main livelihood activity Cash obtained with main 33% 20% 67% 14% 35% 45% 9% 29% 21% 26% livelihood activity
SURPRISING Employing seeds of prime quality 25% 30% 45% 3% 18% 38% 17% 22% 14% 20% Member of a farmer group 0% 100% 33% 4% 20% 75% 30% 57% 9% 21% supported by an NGO Member of a farmer group supported by an NGO and n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 17% provided by seeds by NGO Member of informal farmer group 50% 0% 25% 29% 17% 29% 20% 56% 24% 27%
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 63
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]
PEACE and PARTECIPATION 64