DOCSLIB.ORG

Imatong Socio-Economic Baseline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Imatong Socio-Economic Baseline SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE SURVEY OF IMATONG MOUNTAINS WATER TOWER, AND KINYETI RIVER WATERSHED, SOUTH SUDAN, 2014 For AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION Nairobi/Kenya BASELINE SURVEY REPORT 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We are most grateful to: South Sudan Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture (SSCCA); Government of Eastern Equatoria State (EES), State Ministries of Local Government, Law Enforcement and Wildlife Conservation; Finance and Economic Planning; Agriculture and Forestry; Health and Youth and Sports. We are most grateful to the Payam and Boma leaders especially those from the counties of Torit, Magwi and Ikotos. We are most grateful to the chiefs in the bomas the studies were conducted. Gratitude also goes to the household respondents who represented the counties and generously provided the information upon which this report is based. We would also like to acknowledge the substantive contribution of the research field team. Lastly, we are most honored to the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) for giving us the opportunity to do this assignment. ii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AWF African Wildlife Foundation CBNRM Community Based Resource Management DDR Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration. EA Enumeration Area EES Eastern Equatoria State ECG Environment Cluster Group EIA Environment impact Assessment EKN Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Juba FGD Focus Group Discussion GROSS Government of South Sudan ICFR Imatong Central Forest Reserve IEC Information Education and communication IDI In-depth Interview IKW Imatong Mountains Basin and Kinyeti Watershed KII Key Informant Interview LRA Lord’s Resistance Army MDG Millennium Development Goal MFI Micro Finance Institutions NBHS National Baseline Household Survey NGO Non-Government Organization NRM National Resource Management NRMG Natural Resource Management Group NTP Non Timber Produce PHH Post-Harvest Handling SACCO Savings and Credit Co-operations EA Strategic Environmental Assessment SES Social Economic Survey SESA Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment SSDP South Sudan Development Plan SSNBS South Sudan Natural Bureau of Statistics UN United Nations UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund VAM Vulnerability Assessment Mapping WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WFP World Food Programme iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. ii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. x 1. 1INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 15 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Objective of the Socio-economic Baseline Survey ........................................................................... 18 1.3 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................... 18 1.4 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 19 1.4.1 Team Composition and Logistics .........................................................................................20 1.4.2 Logistics ....................................................................................................................................20 1.4.3 Training of the Field Team and Piloting of survey ............................................................21 1.4.4 Sampling ...................................................................................................................................21 1.4.5 The Fieldwork .........................................................................................................................22 1.4.6 Administration of the Structured Questionnaires ..............................................................23 1.4.7 Administration of the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). ..............................................23 1.4.8 In-depth Interviews (IDIs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) .................................23 1.4.9 Review of Secondary Information ........................................................................................23 1.4.10 Other approaches and tools ..................................................................................................24 1.4.11 Quality Assurance ...................................................................................................................24 1.4.12 Data entry /cleaning/ processing and analysis ...................................................................24 1.4.13 Limitations of the study .........................................................................................................24 2 INSTITUTIONAL, POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK............................................. 25 2.1 Institutional Framework ....................................................................................................................... 25 2.1.1 Ministry of Interior and Wildlife Conservation ..................................................................25 2.1.2 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Tourism, Animal Resources, Fisheries, Cooperatives and Rural Development.................................................................................................................................25 2.1.3 Ministry of Electricity, Dams, Irrigation, and Water Resources ......................................26 2.1.4 Ministry of Environment .......................................................................................................27 2.1.5 South Sudan Land Commission ...........................................................................................27 2.1.6 Natural Resource Management and Environment Working Groups .............................28 2.1.6.1 Natural Resources Management Group ..............................................................................28 2.1.6.2 Environment Cluster Group .................................................................................................28 2.1.7 Traditional Authorities ...........................................................................................................28 iv 2.1.8 Policy and Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................ 29 2.2.1 South Sudan Development Plan (SSDP) .............................................................................29 2.2.2 Environmental Protection Bill, 2010 ...................................................................................31 2.2.3 South Sudan Water Policy, 2007 ...........................................................................................31 2.2.4 The Draft Forestry Policy, 2012 ...........................................................................................32 2.2.5 The Land Act 2009 .................................................................................................................32 2.2 Legal and Institutional Challenges ...................................................................................................... 33 2.3.1 Policy implementation ............................................................................................................33 2.3.2 Need of Integration of Policies and Institutions ................................................................33 2.3.3 Community Participation in Natural Resources Management .........................................34 3 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 35 3.1. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics ...................................................................35 3.1.1 Household size and Composition ........................................................................................35 3.1.2 Age groups of the household heads .....................................................................................35 3.1.3 Marital Status ...........................................................................................................................35 3.1.4 People with special needs ......................................................................................................36 3.1.5 Employment ............................................................................................................................36 3.1.6 Household settlements ...........................................................................................................37 3.1.7 Household Size ........................................................................................................................37 3.1.8 Ethnic Composition ...............................................................................................................37 3.1.9 Religion ...........................................................................................................................................38 3.1.11 Energy Sources for Lighting and Cooking ..........................................................................39 3.1.12 Basic Household Assets .........................................................................................................40
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cholera in South Sudan Situation Report # 95 As at 23:59 Hours, 29 September to 5 October 2014
    Republic of South Sudan Cholera in South Sudan Situation Report # 95 as at 23:59 Hours, 29 September to 5 October 2014 Situation Update As of 5 October 2014, a total of 6,139 cholera cases including 139 deaths (CFR 2%) had been reportedTable 1. Summary in South of Suda choleran as cases summarizedreported in in Juba Tables County 1 and, 23 2.April – 5 October 2014 New New New deaths Total cases Total Total admisions discharges Total Total cases Reporting Sites 29 Sept to currently facility community Total cases 29 Sept to 29 Sept to deaths discharged 5 Oct 2014 admitted deaths deaths 5 Oct 2014 5 Oct 2014 JTH CTC 0 0 0 0 16 0 16 1466 1482 Gurei CTC (changed to ORP) Closed 28 July 2 0 2 365 367 Tongping CTC 0 2 1 3 69 72 Closed August Jube 3/UN House CTC Closed August 0 0 0 0 97 97 Nyakuron West CTC Closed 15 July 0 0 0 18 18 Gumbo CTC Closed 5 July 0 0 0 48 48 Nyakuron ORP Closed 5 July 0 0 0 20 20 Munuki ORP Closed 5 July 0 0 0 8 8 Gumbo ORP Closed 15 July 0 3 3 67 70 Pager PHCU 0 0 0 0 1 5 6 42 48 Other sites 0 0 0 1 15 16 1 17 Total 0 0 0 0 22 24 46 2201 2247 N.B. To prevent double counting of patients, transferred cases from ORPs to CTCs are not counted in the ORPs. Table 2: Summary of cholera cases reported outside Juba County, 23 April – 5 October 2014 New New New Total cases Total Total admisions discharges deaths Total Total cases Total States Reporting Sites currently facility community 29 Sept to 29 Sept to 29 Sep to deaths discharged cases admitted deaths deaths 5 Oct 2014 5 Oct 2014 5 Oct 14 Kajo-Keji civil hospital 0 0 0 0
    [Show full text]
  • Ss 9303 Ee Kapoeta North Cou
    SOUTH SUDAN Kapoeta North County reference map SUDAN Pibor JONGLEI ETHIOPIA CAR DRC KENYA UGANDA EASTERN EQUATORIA Kenyi Lafon Kapoeta East Akitukomoi Kangitabok Lomokori Kapoeta North Ngigalingatun Kangibun Kalopedet Lokidangoai Nomogonjet Nawitapal Mogos Chokagiling Lorutuk Lokoges Nakwa Owetiani Nawabei Natatur Kamaliato Kanyowokol Karibungura Lokale Nagira Belengtobok Tuliabok Lokorechoke Kadapangolol Akoribok Nakwaparich Kalobeliang Wana Kachinga Lomus Lotiakara Pucwa Lopetet Nawao Lokorilam Naduket Tingayta Lodomei Kibak Nakatiti International boundary Nakapangiteng Napusiret Napulak State boundary Loriwo County boundary Kochoto Naminitotit Parpar Undetermined boundary Napusireit Nakwamoru Abyei region Kotak Kasotongor Napochorege Katiakin Nawayareng Riwoto Lokorumor Country capital Nangoletire Lokualem Lumeyen Logerain Lomidila Takankim Lobei Administrative centre/County capital Lokwamor Nacukut Naronyi Nakoret Lotiekar Namukeris Principal town Napotit Naoyatir Nakore Napureit Secondary town Lokwamiro Narubui Barach Lolepon Lotiri Paima Village Loregai Narongyet Lochuloit Kabuni Primary road Kudule Locheler Napusiria Napotpot Secondary road Nacholobo Tertiary road Budi Idong Main river Kapoeta South 0 5 10 km The administrative boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined. Final status of Abyei area is not yet determined. Created: March 2020 | Code: SS-9303 | Sources: OCHA, SSNBS | Feedback: [email protected] | unocha.org/south-sudan | reliefweb.int/country/ssd | southsudan.humanitarianresponse.info .
    [Show full text]
  • The Criminalization of South Sudan's Gold Sector
    The Criminalization of South Sudan’s Gold Sector Kleptocratic Networks and the Gold Trade in Kapoeta By the Enough Project April 2020* A Precious Resource in an Arid Land Within the area historically known as the state of Eastern Equatoria, Kapoeta is a semi-arid rangeland of clay soil dotted with short, thorny shrubs and other vegetation.1 Precious resources lie below this desolate landscape. Eastern Equatoria, along with the region historically known as Central Equatoria, contains some of the most important and best-known sites for artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASM). Some estimates put the number of miners at 60,000 working at 80 different locations in the area, including Nanaknak, Lauro (Didinga Hills), Napotpot, and Namurnyang. Locals primarily use traditional mining techniques, panning for gold from seasonal streams in various villages. The work provides miners’ families resources to support their basic needs.2 Kapoeta’s increasingly coveted gold resources are being smuggled across the border into Kenya with the active complicity of local and national governments. This smuggling network, which involves international mining interests, has contributed to increased militarization.3 Armed actors and corrupt networks are fueling low-intensity conflicts over land, particularly over the ownership of mining sites, and causing the militarization of gold mining in the area. Poor oversight and conflicts over the control of resources between the Kapoeta government and the national government in Juba enrich opportunistic actors both inside and outside South Sudan. Inefficient regulation and poor gold outflows have helped make ASM an ideal target for capture by those who seek to finance armed groups, perpetrate violence, exploit mining communities, and exacerbate divisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict and Crisis in South Sudan's Equatoria
    SPECIAL REPORT NO. 493 | APRIL 2021 UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org Conflict and Crisis in South Sudan’s Equatoria By Alan Boswell Contents Introduction ...................................3 Descent into War ..........................4 Key Actors and Interests ............ 9 Conclusion and Recommendations ...................... 16 Thomas Cirillo, leader of the Equatoria-based National Salvation Front militia, addresses the media in Rome on November 2, 2019. (Photo by Andrew Medichini/AP) Summary • In 2016, South Sudan’s war expand- Equatorians—a collection of diverse South Sudan’s transitional period. ed explosively into the country’s minority ethnic groups—are fighting • On a national level, conflict resolu- southern region, Equatoria, trig- for more autonomy, local or regional, tion should pursue shared sover- gering a major refugee crisis. Even and a remedy to what is perceived eignty among South Sudan’s con- after the 2018 peace deal, parts of as (primarily) Dinka hegemony. stituencies and regions, beyond Equatoria continue to be active hot • Equatorian elites lack the external power sharing among elites. To spots for national conflict. support to viably pursue their ob- resolve underlying grievances, the • The war in Equatoria does not fit jectives through violence. The gov- political process should be expand- neatly into the simplified narratives ernment in Juba, meanwhile, lacks ed to include consultations with of South Sudan’s war as a power the capacity and local legitimacy to local community leaders. The con- struggle for the center; nor will it be definitively stamp out the rebellion. stitutional reform process of South addressed by peacebuilding strate- Both sides should pursue a nego- Sudan’s current transitional period gies built off those precepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 1. Southern Sudan's Protected Areas
    United Nations Development Programme Country: Sudan PROJECT DOCUMENT Launching Protected Area Network Management and Building Capacity in Post-conflict Project Title: Southern Sudan By end of 2012, poverty especially among vulnerable groups is reduced and equitable UNDAF economic growth is increased through improvements in livelihoods, food security, decent Outcome(s): employment opportunities, sustainable natural resource management and self reliance; UNDP Strategic Plan Environment and Sustainable Development Primary Outcome: Catalyzing access to environmental finance UNDP Strategic Plan Secondary Outcome: Mainstreaming environment and energy Expected CP Outcome(s): Strengthened capacity of national, sub-national, state and local institutions and communities to manage the environment and natural disasters to reduce conflict over natural resources Expected CPAP Output(s) 1. National and sub-national, state and local institutions and communities capacities for effective environmental governance, natural resources management, conflict and disaster risk reduction enhanced. 2. Comprehensive strategic frameworks developed at national and sub-national levels regarding environment and natural resource management Executing Entity/Implementing Partner: NGO Execution Modality – WCS in cooperation with the Ministry of Wildlife Conservation and Tourism of the Government of Southern Sudan (MWCT-GoSS) Implementing Entity/Responsible Partners: United Nations Development Programme Brief Description The current situation Despite the 1983 to 2005 civil war, many areas of Southern Sudan still contain areas of globally significant habitats and wildlife populations. For example, Southern Sudan contains one of the largest untouched savannah and woodland ecosystems remaining in Africa as well as the Sudd, the largest wetland in Africa, of inestimable value to the flow of the River Nile, the protection of endemic species and support of local livelihoods.
    [Show full text]
  • Cholera Situation Analysis and Hotspot Mapping in South Sudan
    GTFCC Meeting for the Working Groups on CHOLERA SITUATION ANALYSIS Surveillance AND HOTSPOT MAPPING IN (Epidemiology and Laboratory) (15th to 17th SOUTH SUDAN March 2019) BACKGROUN D 1. South Sudan borders Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, DR Congo, & CAR 2. Got independence in 2011 3. Protracted Grade 3 crisis since 2013 (situation improving since Sept 2018) 4. Severe food insecurity – 7.1million (63% of population) – 45,000 faced with famine 5. 1.87 million IDPs & 2.27million refugees to neighboring countries 1. Multisectoral taskforce in place chaired by MoH with the other sectors (Water & COORDINATION OF Humanitarian Affairs) and partners (Health + WASH) CHOLERA CONTROL clusters as members 2. Draft National Cholera Control Plan pending WASH assessment & stakeholder review/costing 3. Implemented preventive OCV campaigns since 2017 (2.9 million doses approved 27/Mar/2019) 4. Sub-optimal involvement of other sectors and WASH in OCV preventive campaigns CHOLERA IN SOUTH 1. South Sudan endemic for SUDANcholera 2. Since the 2013 crisis onset – cholera outbreaks – 2014 - 2017 3. Between 2014-2017 at least 28,676 cases & 644 deaths reported 4. All outbreaks started in Juba 5. Cases reported along River Nile, cattle camps, IDPs, islands, & Commercial hubs 1600 Cholera cases in South Sudan, 2014 s e s a 1200 Cholera cases in South Sudan, 2014 s c e f s a o 2014 c f r 800 o 2014 e 1000 r e b b m 400 m CHOLERA IN u u N N 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527293133353739414345474951 1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527293133353739414345474951 Week of onset Week of onset 1900 Cholera cases in South Sudan, 2015 s e s SOUTH a c 1600 Cholera cases in South Sudan, 2015 f o s r 900 e e 2015 b s m a 1200 u c N f o -100 r 800 1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527293133353739414345474951 SUDAN e 2015 Week of onset b m 400 u Cholera cases in South Sudan, 2016 s N e 1600 s a 0 c f 1200 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Humanitarian Response Plan South Sudan
    HUMANITARIAN HUMANITARIAN PROGRAMME CYCLE 2021 RESPONSE PLAN ISSUED MARCH 2021 SOUTH SUDAN 01 About This document is consolidated by OCHA on behalf of the Humanitarian Country Team and partners. The Humanitarian Response Plan is a presentation of the coordinated, strategic response devised by humanitarian agencies in order to meet the acute needs of people affected by the crisis. It is based on, and responds to, evidence of needs described in the Humanitarian Needs Overview. Manyo Renk Renk SUDAN Kaka Melut Melut Maban Fashoda Riangnhom Bunj Oriny UPPER NILE Abyei region Pariang Panyikang Malakal Abiemnhom Tonga Malakal Baliet Aweil East Abiemnom Rubkona Aweil North Guit Baliet Dajo Gok-Machar War-Awar Twic Mayom Atar 2 Longochuk Bentiu Guit Mayom Old Fangak Aweil West Turalei Canal/Pigi Gogrial East Fangak Aweil Gogrial Luakpiny/Nasir Maiwut Aweil West UNITY Yomding Raja NORTHERN South Gogrial Koch Nyirol Nasir Maiwut Raja BAHR EL Bar Mayen Koch Ulang Kuajok WARRAP Leer Lunyaker Ayod GHAAL Tonj North Mayendit Ayod Aweil Centre Waat Mayendit Leer Uror Warrap Romic ETHIOPIA Yuai Tonj East WESTERN BAHR Nyal Duk Fadiat Akobo Wau Maper JONGLEI CENTRAL EL GHAAL Panyijiar Duk Akobo Kuajiena Rumbek North AFRICAN Wau Tonj Pochalla Jur River Cueibet REPUBLIC Tonj Rumbek Kongor Pochala South Cueibet Centre Yirol East Twic East Rumbek Adior Pibor Rumbek East Nagero Wullu Akot Yirol Bor South Tambura Yirol West Nagero LAKES Awerial Pibor Bor Boma Wulu Mvolo Awerial Mvolo Tambura Terekeka Kapoeta International boundary WESTERN Terekeka North Mundri
    [Show full text]
  • LC SS 706 A1 EEQ 20130301.Pdf
    pp p ! ! p ! p (! ! !( 32°0'0"E 33°0'0"E 34°0'0"E 35°0'0"E Gwalla Awan KolnyangAluk Katanich Titong Munini Beru ! R . K Wowa ang en Logoda N Rigl Chilimun N " " 0 0 p' Bor South County ' 0 Pibor County Lowelli Katchikan River Bellel Kichepo 0 ° Maktiweng J O N G L E I ° 6 Kaigo 6 Lochiret R. Naro Kenamuke Swamp R Ngechele . S Neria u p Kanopir Natibok Kabalatigo i r i ( B Moru Kimod a Rongada h r Yebisak e g l- n Tombi J o e b b l Shogle e a l) Buka h C . Gwojo-Adung Kassangor R Baro ! E T H I O P I A Moru Kerri KURON Kuron Gigging p Bojo-Ajut Gemmaiza ! Karn Ethi Kerkeng Moru Ethi Nakadocwa Poko Wani Terekeka County Kobowen Swamp Borichadi Bokuna Poko Kassengo Selemani Pagar Nabwel Wani Mika Chabong Tukara C E N T R A L p River Nakua p Kenyi E Q U A T O R I A Moru Angbin Mukajo Gali Owiyabong Kursomba Lotimor Bulu Koli Kalaruz Awakot Katima Waha ! Akitukomoi River Gera Tumu Nanyangachor Nyabongi Napalap ! Namoropus Natilup Swamp ) it Wanyang Kangitabok Lomokori le Eyata Moru Kolinyagkopil il ! Terakeka ri Lozut Lomongole t iti o (! S L Magara p R. ( n Umm Gura Mwanyakapin a p y l Abuilingakine Lomareng Plateau a Dogora R Ngigalingatun k o . L Jelli L o p Rambo Djie Navi . Lokodopotok Nyaginei Kangeleng p R Biyara Nai A o Kworijik Kangibun Lomuleye Katirima t o Simsima Badigeru Swamp River Lokuja Losagam k Musha Lukwatuk Pass Doinyoro East p o p l Balala Legeri Buboli Kalopedet Pongo River Lokorowa Watha Peth Hills Bume E A S T E R N E Q U A T O R I A Lokidangoai Nawitapal Lopokori Lokomarukest Kolobeleng Yakara Dogatwan Nomogonjet Kagethi ! Mogos Bala Pool Lapon County Lotakawa Kanyabu Moru Ethi Donyiro West Donyiro Cliff Kedowa Kothokan a l l i Chokagiling t Karakamuge o Mangalla Bwoda L Mediket Kaliapus Nyangatom !( .
    [Show full text]
  • Linkages-Success-Stories-South-Sudan
    JULY 2016 SUCCESS STORY Success on Several Levels in South Sudan In South Sudan, obtaining HIV care and treatment is difficult for people living with HIV. Only 10 percent of those eligible are currently enrolled on antiretroviral therapy (ART). But for one key population — female sex workers (FSWs) — the barriers to comprehensive HIV care and treatment are particularly daunting. Many sex workers cannot afford to lose income while waiting for services at overburdened hospitals. And those who do seek care often find providers are reluctant to serve them because of the stigma associated with sex work. Recruiting and retaining FSWs and other key populations (KPs) into the HIV cascade of services is a complex issue that demands a response at many levels. In South Sudan, LINKAGES is helping to generate a demand for services, improve access to KP-friendly services, and create a policy environment that is more conducive to the health rights of key populations. GENERATING DEMAND FOR SERVICES The justified mistrust that FSWs have for the health care system keeps many from seeking the services they need. Peer education and outreach is a critical component of engaging KPs in the HIV cascade. LINKAGES South Sudan conducted a mapping exercise to identify hotspots (or key locations) where sex work takes place. From these locations, 65 FSWs were identified and trained as peer educators to lead participatory education sessions among their peers. The sessions are designed to motivate FSWs to adopt healthy behaviors and develop the skills to do so. The sessions cover topics like condom use, regular screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), periodic testing for HIV, and enrollment into care and treatment services for those living with HIV.
    [Show full text]
  • Magwi County
    Resettlement, Resource Conflicts, Livelihood Revival and Reintegration in South Sudan A study of the processes and institutional issues at the local level in Magwi County by N. Shanmugaratnam Noragric Department of International Environment and Development No. Report Noragric Studies 5 8 RESETTLEMENT, RESOURCE CONFLICTS, LIVELIHOOD REVIVAL AND REINTEGRATION IN SOUTH SUDAN A study of the processes and institutional issues at the local level in Magwi County By N. Shanmugaratnam Noragric Report No. 58 December 2010 Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric Norwegian University of Life Sciences, UMB Noragric is the Department of International Environment and Development Studies at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). Noragric’s activities include research, education and assignments, focusing particularly, but not exclusively, on developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Noragric Reports present findings from various studies and assignments, including programme appraisals and evaluations. This Noragric Report was commissioned by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) under the framework agreement with UMB which is administrated by Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the employer of the assignment (Norad) and with the consultant team leader (Noragric). The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are entirely those of the authors and cannot be attributed directly to the Department of International Environment and Development Studies (UMB/Noragric). Shanmugaratnam, N. Resettlement, resource conflicts, livelihood revival and reintegration in South Sudan: A study of the processes and institutional issues at the local level in Magwi County. Noragric Report No. 58 (December 2010) Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining in South Sudan: Opportunities and Risks for Local Communities
    » REPORT JANUARY 2016 MINING IN SOUTH SUDAN: OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF SMALL-SCALE AND ARTISANAL GOLD MINING IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EQUATORIA STATES, SOUTH SUDAN MINING IN SOUTH SUDAN FOREWORD We are delighted to present you the findings of an assessment conducted between February and May 2015 in two states of South Sudan. With this report, based on dozens of interviews, focus group discussions and community meetings, a multi-disciplinary team of civil society and government representatives from South Sudan are for the first time shedding light on the country’s artisanal and small-scale mining sector. The picture that emerges is a remarkable one: artisanal gold mining in South Sudan ‘employs’ more than 60,000 people and might indirectly benefit almost half a million people. The vast majority of those involved in artisanal mining are poor rural families for whom alluvial gold mining provides critical income to supplement their subsistence livelihood of farming and cattle rearing. Ostensibly to boost income for the cash-strapped government, artisanal mining was formalized under the Mining Act and subsequent Mineral Regulations. However, owing to inadequate information-sharing and a lack of government mining sector staff at local level, artisanal miners and local communities are not aware of these rules. In reality there is almost no official monitoring of artisanal or even small-scale mining activities. Despite the significant positive impact on rural families’ income, the current form of artisanal mining does have negative impacts on health, the environment and social practices. With most artisanal, small-scale and exploration mining taking place in rural areas with abundant small arms and limited presence of government security forces, disputes over land access and ownership exacerbate existing conflicts.
    [Show full text]
  • Water for Eastern Equatoria (W4EE)
    Water for Eastern Equatoria (W4EE) he first integrated water resource management (IWRM) project of its kind in South Sudan, Water Water for Eastern for Eastern Equatoria (W4EE) was launched in Components 2013 as part of the broader bilateral water Tprogramme funded through the Dutch Multiannual Equatoria (W4EE) Strategic Plan for South Sudan (2012–2015). W4EE focuses on three interrelated From the very beginning, W4EE was planned as a pilot components: IWRM programme in the Torit and Kapoeta States of The role of integrated water resource manage- Eastern Equatoria focusing on holistic management of the ment in fostering resilience, delivering economic Kenneti catchment, conflict-sensitive oversight of water Component 1: Integrated water resource management of the development, improving health, and promoting for productive use such as livestock and farming, and Kenneti catchment and surrounds peace in a long-term process. improved access to safe drinking water as well as sanitati- on and hygiene. The goal has always been to replicate key Component 2: Conflict-sensitive management of water for learnings and best practice in other parts of South Sudan. productive use contributes to increased, sustained productivity, value addition in agriculture, horticulture, and livestock The Kenneti catchment is very important to the Eastern Equatoria region for economic, social, and biodiversity reasons. The river has hydropower potential, supports the Component 3: Safely managed and climate-resilient drinking livelihoods of thousands of households, and the surroun- water services and improved sanitation and hygiene are available, ding area hosts a national park with forests and wetlands operated and maintained in a sustainable manner. as well as wild animals and migratory birds.
    [Show full text]