1 | P a g e World Vision South Sudan ECHO FOOD VOUCHER RAPID ASSESSMENT REPORT JUNE 2014 By: Bernard D. Togba Jr. Francis Thomas Mogga World Vision South Sudan 2 | P a g e Table of Contents Topic Page List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….………………….. 3 List of Acronyms……………………………………………………………………………………… 4 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..……………… 5 2. Objectives……………………………………………………………………………….…………. 6 3. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………….………. 6 3.1. Sample………………………………………………………………………………………….7 3.2. Data Management & Analysis………………………………………………………………….. 7 3.3. Limitations……………………………………………………………………………………… 7 4. Overview of Towns…………………………………………………………………………………. 8 4.1. Overview of Malakal…………………………………………………………………………… 8 4.2. Overview of Renk………………………………………………………………………………. 8 4.3. Overview of Kodok…………………………………………………………………………….. 10 4.4. Overview of Lul……………………………………………………………………………….. 10 4.5. Food Availability……………..…………………………………………………………………. 11 5. Summary Results………………………………………………………………………………………11 5.1. Key Informants……………………..……………………………………………………………..11 5.2. Traders…………………………………………………………………………………………….12 5.2.1. Business & Supply………………………………………………………………………. 13 5.2.2. Payment & Transport…………………………….……………………………………. 17 5.3. Beneficiaries………………………………………………………..…………………………….. 19 5.3.1. IDPs Perception…………………………….……..…………………………………… 19 5.3.2. General Characteristics………………………………………………………………….19 5.3.3. Household Welfare & Vulnerability………………………………..…………………… 19 6. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………… 22 World Vision South Sudan 3 | P a g e List of Tables Title Page Table 1: Questionnaire Distribution…………………………………………………..………..7 Table 2: Food Available on the Market…………………………………………………….…11 Table 3: Market Capacity (Key Informants Perception)……………………………..…….… 12 Table 4: Business & Crisis Effect……………………………………………………..………. 12 Table 5: Food Products Sold (Large Quantities)……………………………………..……….. 13 Table 6: Income of Traders (May 2014)………………………………………………..……...14 Table 7: Food Stock Levels………………………………………………………….……….. 14 Table 8: Comparison of Prices-May/June 2014………………………………………………..15 Table 9: Factors Affecting Prices.…………………………………………………………..... 16 Table 10: Restocking Ability of Traders………….………………………….………….….. 16 Table 11: Market Share………………….……………………………………………….….17 Table 12: Transportation……..…………………………………………………………….. 17 Table 13: Payment Preference………………..…………………………………….………..17 Table 14: Access to Credit and Notice Period…………………………………………….. 18 Table 15: Relationship of Respondents to Household Heads……………………….…….. 19 Table 16: Preferred Usage of Voucher……………………………………………..……….19 Table 17: Preferred Method of Assistance………………………………………………….. 20 Table 18: Income & Expenditure Status……………………………………………………..20 Table 19: Choice of Food Basket Items…………………………………………………….. 21 Table 20: Opportunity and Rationale for Voucher-Based Interventions per location ……..22 World Vision South Sudan 4 | P a g e List of Acronyms Acronym Definition FGDs Focus Groups Discussions GAM Global Acute Malnutrition IDPs Internally Displaced Persons IMC International Medical Corps IOM International Organization of Migration IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification PLW Pregnant and Lactating Women NFI Non Food Items NGO Non -Governmental Organization Po C Protection of Civilian SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences SSP South Sudan Pounds UN United Nations UNMISS United Nations Mission in South Sudan USD United States Dollars WaSH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WFP World Food Program WHO Wor ld Health Organization World Vision South Sudan 5 | P a g e 1. Introduction Following fighting which sparked on December 15, 2013, nearly 1.5 million people have been displaced in South Sudan. Close to 1.5 million people have been displaced from their homes since the start of the crisis, including approximately 100,000 people sheltering in UN bases 1. Moreover, over 392, 800 2 have fled to neighboring countries including Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, and Sudan. The conflict mostly affected the areas of Juba in Central Equatoria, Malakal and Renk in Upper Nile State, and Bentiu in Unity State, causing many South Sudanese to seek shelter in Protection of Civilian (PoC) sites. States with high number if IDPs include Jonglei, Upper Niles, Unity and Lakes. Market disruption, reduced food and income sources, and widespread displacement have resulted in significant food consumption gaps in the conflict-affected areas of Jonglei, Unity, and Upper Nile states. Although humanitarian agencies are making efforts to scale up assistance, access remains limited and in some of the worst-affected areas no food assistance has been delivered. In addition to expectations of reduced cultivation because of insecurity and seed scarcity, current forecasts suggest an increased likelihood of below-average rainfall between June and August. This could further depress October to December harvests. Food security is expected to deteriorate over the coming two months, with the population in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) in Unity, Jonglei, and Upper Nile states growing to 1 million by August. The violence and displacement has worsened an already fragile food security situation. It is estimated that 3.9 million people will face alarming levels of food insecurity by the end of August; the most affected being internally displaced people and host communities affected by the ongoing conflict. Up to 7.3 million will be at some risk of food insecurity over the course of the year. Improvements in food security following green harvests in August are likely to be short-lived as production is expected to be well below average. If conflict continues, harvests are poor and humanitarian assistance remains limited, food insecurity in 2015 could be worse than this year. 3 Upper Nile State is one of the states most affected by the conflict with around 700, 000 persons in emergency or IPC phase (around 50% of the Upper Nile state population). 4 Various forms of malnutrition have been prevalent among vulnerable groups in South Sudan for many years and the current crisis exacerbates the situation by disrupting livelihoods and reducing access to food. The malnutrition levels in several of the affected states were high before the outbreak of the current violence, with assessments from June 2013 showing Global Acute Malnutrition rates above the WHO emergency threshold of 15% in three states. 5 One year later (June 2014), this situation has grown worse due to the crisis compounded by food insecurity. The relatively better pre-crisis nutritional situation in Upper Nile State deteriorated sharply due to the repeated violence in the state during the last two months that completely disrupted food supply systems and decimated health services. This was evident from a nutrition assessment conducted by IMC in late January 2014 for children under five and PLW in the PoC site in Malakal County in Upper Nile state. The results of this assessment showed that the GAM rate for children aged 6-59 months is 20.11%. PLW are also at heightened risk with the GAM rate for pregnant women 38.29% and lactating women 24.14% (IMC, 28/01/2014). 6 An inter-agency assessment conducted at the end of January in Upper Nile confirmed that displaced persons were suffering from food insecurity after consuming the only ration of sorghum. In the same assessment the 1 UNOCHA South Sudan Situation report as of June 20 th , 2014. 2 UNOCHA South Sudan Situation report as of June 26 th , 2014. 3 Famine Early Warning System Network: http://www.fews.net/east-africa/sud%C3%A1n-del-sur/food-security-outlook/sat- 2014-05-31-tue-2014-09-30 4 UNOCHA Humanitarian Crisis Snapshot report as of June 20 th , 2014 5 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp259082.pdf 6 http://southsudan.humanitarianresponse.info/assessment/nutrition-assessment-malakal-county-upper-nile-state-25-27- january-2014 World Vision South Sudan 6 | P a g e Melut IDP’s informed that they left behind all livestock they had. In addition, people expressed fear of venturing to the Nile for fishing because of the insecurity in the area. 7 Displacement and conflict are disrupting the agricultural cycle and the situation is predicted to worsen should farmers miss the planting season in March. People are reliant on food aid because markets have been completely destroyed, foreign commercial actors have left and supply chains have been blocked by violence. Those who have sought safety in Protection of Civilian (PoC) areas have abandoned their crops and livestock and are unable to consume or sell them. 8 It is very likely that the current crisis may develop into a complex humanitarian crisis with ongoing conflict and insecurity coupled with a severe food and nutrition crisis. World Vision has been responding to the crisis since January 2014 in Upper Nile, Unity, Western Equatoria, Warrap and Central Equatoria States with over 85% of WV programming in Upper Nile State. Main sectors of intervention are Food Security & Livelihoods, Food Assistance, Nutrition, WaSH and NFI. World Vision is a key partner for WFP in the implementation of its food delivery program and has carried out food distributions in Upper Nile (Malakal, Kodok, Rom, Wau Shulul and Lul). World Vision has assisted 170,666 individuals in Upper Nile State with food. World Vision has recognized the need to carry out an assessment in Upper Nile to complement WFP’s efforts and to find a more cost-effective and market-friendly way to deliver aid to people in need. The areas where World Vision is currently delivering food assistance were