1 | P a g e

World Vision 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 …………………………………………………………………………… 8

4.2. Overview of Renk………………………………………………………………………………. 8

4.3. Overview of …………………………………………………………………………….. 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 in Central Equatoria, Malakal and Renk in 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 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 assessed.

2. Objective

The assessment was carried out to provide needed information on the markets capacity to respond to cash- and voucher-based interventions, beneficiary preferences and vulnerability, security, quality and availability of available food commodities that could be used in a food basket for a potential voucher project.

3. Methodology The assessment utilized a series of questionnaires that focused on the basic market related information needed for response analysis. Providing such interview structures ensured at minimum, the collection of data in a context that was very stressful, and where little training and pilot testing of questionnaires was provided.

Understanding that very detailed and complete analysis is not possible within a short timeframe for the several sites visited, the assessment was designed to allow the team to get a ‘good enough’ picture of the situation, conduct a meaningful analysis and reach transparent and consensual programme decisions. Acknowledging that, the information collected could have a short “shelf-life” due to the unpredictable situation in the country. The assessment is intended to support programme decisions, but because the market situation can change significantly, even in the short term, the assessment-based programme decisions should remain as flexible and adaptable as possible. Therefore, processes and tools suggested in the assessment are built mostly upon qualitative and quantitative information and methodologies that included the participation of key informants and stakeholders.

The sample included 370 individuals distributed in the table below. Sampling was done using a Simple Random method. Traders and beneficiaries were chosen at random from the general populations and interviewed with

7 Initial Rapid Needs Assessment Report: Dethoma, Melut Upper Nile - January 31, 2014

8 FAO, February 5, 2014, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/213573/icode/

World Vision South Sudan

7 | P a g e

predesigned questionnaires. Surveys were carried out in Renk & Wonthau (), Kodok (), Lul (Fashoda County), Melut (), Rom (Akoka County) and Malakal POC (Malakal County) with traders and potential beneficiaries in Upper Nile State.

The survey locations were chosen based on several factors:

• There are large populations of IDPs in or around the locations; • The IDPs at the locations are in need of food assistance; • WVI is responding in and around these locations with Food Assistance and other projects.

Table 1: Questionnaire Distribution

Town INTERVIEWS Key Informant Vendor/Trader Beneficiaries Total Wonthau 15 20 55 90

Malakal 15 20 55 83 Kodok 20 20 55 95 Lul 20 20 55 95 Total 70 80 220 370

Primary data was collected using both quantitative and qualitative survey techniques. Quantitative data was collected using several levels of questionnaires for Traders, Key Informants and proposed beneficiaries (IDPs). PoC leaders, RRC Coordinator, Pastors, Teachers and Women Leaders served as key informants in the communities for this assessment.

3.1. Sample Size The sample size of 370 was used, based on a convenient purposive sampling to enable us understand the situation and provide us with a snapshot of the market and population perception in the surveyed areas. The sample was shared equally between 6 locations (Wonthau, Malakal, Kodok, Lul, Rom and Melut). It is worth mentioning that Rom was not accessible due to the rainy season and Melut could not be reached as the road to Renk town was closed due to security situation in Renk at the time of the survey. Hence the sample size was divided among the remaining 4 locations (Wonthau, Malakal, Kodok & Lul). However, data from a previous survey done in Melut and Rom have been used to make some conclusions about them.

3.2. Data Management and Analysis The quantitative data was analyzed using EXCEL and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). A computerized data capture screen was developed in EXCEL to facilitate data entry and imported in SPSS for analysis. Data was cleaned and analyzed to generate different descriptive statistics.

3.3. Limitations • The sample number is not statistically significant but provides us with a snapshot of the market and the proposed beneficiary perception of the proposed project.

• Heavy rains limited access to some areas (such as Rom) and logistical contraints related to insecurity limited access to other areas (such as Melut).

• Although all survey team members where thoroughly trained on the data collection tools and methodology, the likelihood of data collection errors was highly likely considering the errors noted in the data cleaning.

World Vision South Sudan

8 | P a g e

4. Overview of Towns

4.1. Overview of Malakal POC (Malakal county)

The crisis in Malakal caused 26,400 IDPs of the residents to move to the UNMISS compound which opened a PoC site that is safe and secured for the internally displaced population 9. The conflict in Malakal has affected lives of the residents negatively and has caused them to become vulnerable to diseases and food shortages. The residents still have access to market and food from the traders who moved from Malakal town to the PoC. The market is situated just outside the gate of the PoC and provides variety of commodities to the PoC residents. The markets presently have not regained their full capacity and they may not have full capacity until the current crisis comes to an end.

The present Malakal market is comprised of retail makeshift shops that are found inside and just outside the PoC and the UNMISS compound. There are about 15 -20 shops/stalls that are well stocked with food commodities outside the gate of the PoC as well as about 30-60 smaller traders with assorted food commodities. The food basket in Malakal POC is not complete because the conflict has limited the traders’ ability to access stocks from the Sudan, Juba and Gambella (Ethiopian Border). At the moment, the supply in the shops in Malakal POC is not diverse and some items are only available in limited quantities (such as fruit).

Fruits are brought from Khartoum through Renk town and Melut in limited quantities; mangos come from Panyikan County in Upper Nile. The major supply areas are Gambella, South Kordofan and Renk (at the time of the survey had a conflict ongoing). Before the conflict, the major supply routes for Malakal are Gambella (Ethiopian border), Juba, South Kordofan, and Renk. The rains have also affect transportation due to the poor road conditions in Malakal County.

The distance from Paloich - Malakal is 4-5 days by truck, South Kordofan - Malakal is around 1-2 weeks depending on road conditions. Presently, most of the food sold on the market in Malakal comes from Wau Shilluk (20 minutes using speed boat, 1-2 hours using a bigger boat) and Kodok (1 hour using speedboat). Transport cost is unstable and keeps changing based on the availability of trucks. Since the crisis, Malakal PoC has been supplied from the markets in Kodok and Renk.

Malakal has a clay-like road which makes it difficult to transport commodities during the rainy season. The Malakal airports has improved and UNMISS has a permanent presence at the airport.

4.2. Overview of Renk 10

The total estimated population that fled from Renk County to Wonthau Boma in Gegeir Payam is approximated to be 13,500 people’s women, children and men 11 . The conflict has affected the normal operation of business in Renk County. The population of Renk town has reduced, as some of the people moved southwards to Jelhak (Renk County), while the majority moved northwards to Wonthau (Renk County)

Wonthau is a town bordering Sudan and is located in the northern part of Renk County in Gegeir Payam. The town is busy since the people leaving Renk town have shifted their socio-economic activities in the area.

9 UNMISS Update 26 June, 2014

10 Data collection ended in Renk and Wonthau before the fighting started. June 4 th , 2014 11 UNMISS Update 26 June, 2014

World Vision South Sudan

9 | P a g e

Wonthau is a booming zone of business since the area is a transit hub to Khartoum. A lot of trans-border trading takes place between the IDPs and refugees on both sides of the border. The IDPs in Wonthau are hoping to receive better services from humanitarian agencies, though at the moment only Medair (Health, WASH and NFIs) and IOM (IDP Registration) have a presence in the area.

Renk County is a bustling business area and major trading post that promotes trade between South Sudan and Khartoum. The movement of goods and traders from between Sudan and South Sudan is facilitated by the presence of a good all weather tarmacked road between Renk town and Khartoum. Renk town also has other utility services such as electricity and water services which makes it an attractive town for business. The conflict at the time of the survey has caused most of the traders to move along with the displaced population, which enables the IDPs to still have access to food and other goods. The remaining traders in Renk town serve the people in Jelhak (south in Renk country) and Wonthau (north in Renk county) which are the major IDPs hubs as well as traders from Malakal and Kodok.

Key informants in Renk suggested that the best intervention for an emergency would be distribution of items. Nonetheless, they also said that vouchers would be their second best option, because Wonthau has a lively border market (with Sudan). This means that the traders have the potential to stock their shops on daily basis because of the Joda market on the Sudan side of the international border. Joda market is the major supply location for the markets in that region.

Renk town has an airstrip that allows a plane/helicopter to land at the Renk UNMISS Compound. There is also an airstrip in Melut which is connected to Renk town by road. Wonthau does not have an airstrip. . Key informants believed that cash- and voucher-based interventions will succeed better if there is no fighting in the Renk area as this will continue the stability the area has enjoyed and keep the traders in the market. Health services are being provided by Medair, IOM and IMA GOSS. Major illnesses noticed by the residents include diarrhea amongst children, respiratory infections, malaria and malnutrition (under 5s).

Renk town has over 30 permanent shops. Wonthau has about 45 semi-permanent stalls where traders sell their goods. There are about 120-150 petty traders with small stalls in the Renk area, (which includes Renk town and county) although some are not operational due to the crisis.

Renk town to Wonthau (border point with Sudan) is about 80 kilometer (45 minutes’ drive) by tarmacked road. Transport costs around Renk costs around 15SSP on buses and 25SSP in smaller taxis. Renk town is only about 6 hours’ drive from Khartoum

Wonthau IDP Overview 12 (as part of Renk)

IDP movements in Renk County and across the Sudan and South Sudan border remain fluid and include new arrivals in Wonthau and surrounding areas. Men in Wonthau travel daily across the border to Sudan in search of work and food. However, populations in Wonthau have expressed unwillingness to travel north to Sudan because of security concerns and feelings of insecurity. Some in the target population have been displaced multiple times and have limited capacity to cope with existing vulnerabilities. Demarcated ethnic and tribal tensions, expanding IDP movements, and increasingly overcrowded living conditions and competition for resources has resulted in a volatile context which has resulted in the recent clashes in Renk town.

The target population in Wonthau is overwhelmingly comprised of women, young children and the elderly from different ethnic background that the resident communities. The predominance of single-headed

12 Renk IRNA Assessment report May 2014 https://southsudan.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/southsudan.humanitarianresponse.info/files/assessments/IRNA%20- %20Final%20Report%20(Renk%20County)%20150514.pdf

World Vision South Sudan

10 | P a g e

households, separated and unaccompanied children, and the elderly indicates that IDPs in Wonthau are particularly vulnerable and have specific humanitarian needs. This IDP population is vulnerable and in need of multi-sector humanitarian interventions, particularly in protection, WASH, health and food and nutrition.

Living conditions in Wonthau are universally poor. Residents of Wonthau are stretched beyond capacity to host displaced populations. More than 13,500 IDPs have relied on three mechanisms for identifying alternative shelter: 1) using educational facilities and other abandoned infrastructure as temporary lodging, 2) constructing shelters from local materials, or 3) creating makeshift accommodations. There is no formal education currently provided in Wonthau. However, displaced families, mostly women and children, staying in schools are exposed to the possibility of expulsion should formal education recommence. IDPs with sufficient financial resources are purchasing materials available in local markets and constructing shelters, while the most vulnerable populations have relied on makeshift accommodations that are inadequate to protect them from the environment or weather.

According to the IRNA assessment in Renk May 2014, displaced families in Wonthau have difficulty accessing food and have reduced the number of meals per day to cope with shortages. More than twenty percent of the population who participated in a screening were acutely malnourished or borderline acutely malnourished and in need or emergency nutrition support. Despite the need, there are currently no nutritional support interventions in Wonthau.

4.3. Overview of Kodok (Fashoda county)

IDPs in Kodok are stable and there is not much movement except for farming purposes or to find food. The rate of people leaving the IDP areas permanently is very low. The majority of Kodoks’ traders presently purchase their goods from South Kordofan (Sudan). Renk, Malakal and Juba were the main purchase areas for these traders before the conflict. Kodok town has airstrip and a harbor for boats. Kodok has a clay-like soil and no tarmac roads which makes it difficult to transport goods during the rainy season. Kodok is linked to a harbor and has access to suppliers from South Kordofan, Kosti and Paloich. Kodok market presently supplies Malakal PoC, Wau-Shilluk, Lul and Rom.

There are 20 traders with permanent well-structured shops and large stock of food products within Kodok market as well 12 traders with semi-permanent structures and many smaller and petty traders. Some traders sell on particular days of the week and some are in the market daily (especially the vegetables and fish sellers). Most of the items in the proposed food basket can be found on the Kodok market, however the traders are worried about the intensiveness of the rainy season and insecurity in the region as it may hamper their restocking ability. The ability of the Kodok traders to restock has improved over the past 2 months. Stock levels in the shops are much higher than they were in May 2014 when the first part of this market assessment was conducted. Kodok is close to Malakal town, Wau Shilluk and Lul and serves as a supply center for those towns. The distance from Kodok to Renk town is 80 miles by river and to South Kordofan is about 120 miles by road. Kodok to South Kordofan cost about 150 SSP; Kodok to Malakal costs 20 SSP and from Wau Shilluk to Kodok is 10 SSP.

4.4. Overview of Lul

Lul has an IDP center with about 11,000 persons that are displaced from Malakal and other areas in Upper Nile. There are 4 semi-permanent shops and the rest are simple stalls. There were about 5 traders who have a few products with medium sized stalls. Lul is supplied from Kodok, Malakal, Wau Shilluk, Renk town, and Melut. From Lul to Kodok is 2 hours by boat; to Wau Shilluk is 1 hour by boat; and to Malakal town is about 2 hours and 30 minutes.

The IDPs are stable in Lul and return once in a while to Malakal to check their properties. Lul has access to the , Lul docking site or Kodok airstrip. Lul has a wet, muddy and swampy terrain during the rainy season.

World Vision South Sudan

11 | P a g e

4.5. Food Availability

The most common food available on the markets include: fish, beef, rice, vegetables, limited quantity of fruits, onions, sugar, oils, sorghum/maize, bread, salt and hadas. The Renk market with its connection to the market in Wonthau town is one of the most diversified markets with more traders and more permanent stores in the region at present. The survey could not obtain information as to their exact sales volume per month nor exact quantities of food stock. The stocks were observed and roughly classified as low, medium or high. 18 Beef sellers were found during the assessment in the various markets. Fruits are generally very limited in supply and vegetables are available but not in large quantities. Malakal POC market is diversified but limited in the quantity and size of traders. All of the food basket items are available at this market but some items like fruits, cowpeas and vegetable are available in very limited quantities. Renk with its’ connect to Sudan and the market in Wonthau can be considered the best market followed by Kodok within Upper Nile State. All of the other towns (Malakal, Rom, Lul, and Melut) presently depend upon Renk town and Kodok for all their supplies.

Fish, beans/cowpeas, oil and salt are available in large quantities to support a voucher-based intervention. Fruits and vegetables can be found in very limited quantities and cannot support a large population need.

Table 2: Food Available on the Market

Food Renk/Wonthau Malakal Kodok Lul Joda Border (All in limited quantities) Fish Yes Yes Yes Yes Beef Yes Yes Ye s Yes Rice Yes Yes Yes Yes Vegetables Yes Yes(Limited) Yes - Fruits Yes(Limited) Yes(Limited) Yes(Very Limited) - Onions Yes Yes Yes - Sugar Yes Yes Yes - Sorghum/Maize Yes Yes Yes Yes Salt Yes Yes Yes Yes Hadas Yes Yes Yes Yes Oils Yes Yes Yes Yes Beans/Cowpea s Yes Yes(Limited) Yes - Bread - - Yes Yes

5. Summary Results

5.1. Key Informants

• General Characteristics : The rapid assessment team surveyed 70 key informants in Malakal (15), Renk (15), Kodok (20) and Lul (20). 51 of them were females and 19 were males. Key informants included the women leaders in the communities as well as other influential persons within the communities. Food choices were basically the same as per the food basket in Table 2. When queried, the male respondents indicated that female family members are responsible for the purchase of food; vouchers should therefore be distributed to them.

• 60% of all key informants survey in the four areas think that the emergency needs of the people are likely to be met by cash- or voucher-based interventions rather than by the distributions of items, while 40% feel it will be met by the distributions of items.

World Vision South Sudan

12 | P a g e

• 59% stated that the local market systems have the capacity to meet the emergency needs of the affected population if their purchasing power is increased (especially those in Renk /Wonthau and Kodok), while 41% believe that the markets will not have the capacity needed for such a surge especially in Lul and Malakal POC. 100% of the key informants agreed that should the insecurity (in the event of active fighting) continue cash- and voucher-based interventions will be negatively impacted, because traders and IDPs will move to other safer locations.

Table 3: Market Capacity (Key Informants Perception)

Location Market Capacity to host Voucher Project

Yes No

Renk /Wonthau 13 2 Malakal 8 7 Kodok 12 8 Lul 8 12 Total 41 29 Percentage 59 % 41%

5.2. Traders

• General Characteristics : The rapid assessment team surveyed 80 traders/vendors in and around Wonthau (including some in Renk town), Malakal POC, Kodok and Lul. 88% of the traders were men and 12% were female.

• 13% of the businesses consider themselves large 13 (with diverse food commodities); 43% are medium sized businesses 14 (stalls with a variety of food commodities) and 44% are small and petty traders 15 in the market. Although some business in Malakal and Renk /Wonthau consider themselves large, observations show that they are more medium sized. A voucher-based intervention is able to use small, medium and large sized business as long as there is stability , supply access and business men have the ability to restock.

Table 4: Business Size & Crisis Effect

Town Business Size Effects of the Crisis Total Large Med ium Small Total Good Bad Same (Making (Losses) (No profits) Change) Renk /Wonth 2 7 11 20 3 11 6 20 au Malakal 4 8 8 20 8 11 1 20 Kodok 5 10 5 20 9 10 1 20 Lul - 9 11 20 2 18 - 20 Total 11 34 35 80 22 50 8 80 Percentage 13% 43% 44% 28% 63% 9%

13 Large Business( with large variety of food stocks) have an estimated monthly turnover of 3000.00USD 14 Medium-sized Business( with some food commodities) have an estimated monthly turnover of 2000 USD 15 Small & Petty Business( with small food commodities) have an estimated monthly turnover of 500.00USD

World Vision South Sudan

13 | P a g e

5.2.1. Business & Supply

• On average over all survey locations, the crisis had a bad effect on 65% of the businesses as they suffered severe losses and had their businesses either looted or damaged. 28% of the businesses reported making profits through price increments. The traders in Renk/ Wonthau suffered losses in terms of profits but not the same as the traders in the other 3 towns surveyed.

• There are a variety of commodities on the markets. The table below shows the commodities sold in large quantity by the traders. The table shows the number of traders that sold each food commodity. The survey could not obtain the quantity sold per commodity because the traders were unable to provide such details. Millet and fruits and virtually nonexistent on the markets. Food products such as rice, sorghum, bread, peanuts, beans, oils and hadas are sold in large quantities. Food commodities such as fish, beans, oil and salt are available in large quantities in Renk/Wonthau and Kodok and in medium quantities on the other markets. Vegetables and fruits are available in very limited quantities on all of the markets. Implementing a cash- or voucher based food intervention for 13,500 beneficiaries will require about 85.05MT of food commodities monthly based on the proposed food basket and calculations done by the Food Assistance team, which the markets in Renk/Wonthau and Kodok have the capacity for hosting. This is based on the observations of the rapid assessment team and is based on how often the traders are able to restock.

Table 5: Food Products Sold (Large Quantities)

Renk / Malakal Kodok Lul Wonthau % of Food Product # of # of # of # of Total Traders Traders Traders Traders Traders Fish 5 6 9 9 29 36% Beef 8 6 11 9 34 43% Rice 14 11 18 15 58 73% Peanuts/Groundnuts 5 10 13 9 37 46% Beans/Cowpeas 6 9 13 9 37 46% Sorghum/Maize 10 10 11 15 46 58% Fruits 2 5 5 4 16 20% Millet 0 2 1 1 4 5% Vegetables 8 7 8 10 33 41% Bread 11 9 14 9 43 54% Hadas 14 11 10 13 48 60% Oils 17 11 16 18 62 78% Salt 17 11 16 16 60 75% Other food 15 3 2 3 23 29%

• The capacity of the traders to participate in a voucher-based intervention can be seen though the volume of their sales and their levels of stock. Only 5% of the traders reported having an income over 25,000SSP (7,145USD) during May sales, however at least 27% of the traders have an average monthly sales income between 5,000 and 25,000 SSP). 25% Of the traders also reported “no profit”, which is related to price fluctuations between the time of purchase and sales of stocks.

World Vision South Sudan

14 | P a g e

Table 6: Income of Traders (May 2014) Renk Malakal Kodok Lul /Wonthau Income Bracket % of # of # of # of # of Total Traders Traders Traders Traders Traders No profit 4 2 6 8 20 25% <5,000 SSP 8 10 9 8 35 44% 5001 SSP - 10,000SSP 4 5 2 4 15 19% 10,001 SSP -25,000SSP 4 0 2 0 6 8% >25,000SSP 0 3 1 0 4 5% 1.00USD=3.5SSP

• 9% Of the traders currently have high levels of food stock, 55% of them have medium levels of food stock, 34% of them have low levels of food stock and 3% have no food stock at all. The data shows that the traders’ levels of food stock can support a voucher-based intervention based on their ability to hold higher levels of food stock and restocking capabilities. The high and medium levels traders in Wonthau and Kodok have the ability to raise their food stock levels from medium to high within short periods of time.

Table 7: Food Stock Levels Stock Level Location High 16 Medium 17 Low 18 None Wonthau 1 12 6 1 Malakal 3 9 7 1 Kodok 3 10 7 0 Lul 0 13 7 0 Total 7 44 27 2 Percentage 9% 55% 34% 3%

The current stock levels are the normal levels for 42% of the traders; it is not the normal level of stock for 58% of the traders as they had to reduce their holdings due to the crisis and insecurity. They have the ability to increase these stock levels within short periods of time as needed.

Table 8 compares the prices of food products between May and June 2014. The table shows that prices have relatively remained stable over the period.

16 Business with variety of food commodities worth at least 3000.00USD

17 Business with some variety of food commodities worth at least 2000.00 USD

18 Business with small variety of food commodities worth at least 500.00 USD

World Vision South Sudan

15 | P a g e

Table 8: Comparison of Prices - May/June 2014( June prices were taken on the day of the survey)

Renk /Wonthau Malakal Kodok Lul

Food May 2014 June 2014 May 2014 June 2014 May 2014 June 2014 May 2014 June 2014 Commodity Unit Price Unit Price Unit Price Unit Price Unit Price Unit Price Unit Price Unit Price /Unit(SSP) /Unit(SSP) /Unit(SSP) /Unit(SSP) /Unit /Unit /Unit /Unit Fish 8 SSP (2 pcs) 7 SSP (2 pcs) 16 SSP (2 pcs) 14 SSP (2 pcs) 11 SSP (2 pcs) 11 SSP (2 pcs) 8 SSP (2 pcs) 10 SSP (2 pcs) Beef 38SSP(1 kg) 39SSP(1 kg) 25 SSP(1 kg) 24 SSP(1 kg) 14 SSP(1 kg) 14 SSP(1 kg) 12 SSP(1 kg) 16 SSP(1 kg) Rice 14SSP(1 kg) 14SSP(1 kg) 14 SSP(1 kg) 14SSP(1 kg) 10 SSP(1 kg) 11SSP(1 kg) 12 SSP(1 kg) 13SSP(1 kg) Peanuts 12SSP(1 kg) 13SSP(1 kg) 18 SSP(1 kg) 15SSP(1 kg) 12 SSP(1 kg) 12SSP(1 kg) 14 SSP(1 kg) 13SSP(1 kg) /Groundnuts Beans/Cowpea 11SSP(1 kg) 17SSP(1 kg) 8 SSP(1 kg) 6 SSP( 1 kg) 10 SSP(1 kg) 12 SSP(1 kg) 9 SSP(1 kg) 10SSP(1 kg) s Sorghum/Maiz 4SSP( 1 kg) 7SSP(1 kg) 16 SSP( 1 kg) 17 SSP( 1 kg) 13 SSP( 1 kg) 13 SSP( 1 kg) 22 SSP( 1 kg) 20 SSP( 1 kg) e Fruits 11 SSP(1 Pcs) 5SSP( 1 Pcs) 21 SSP(1 Pcs) 6 SSP(1 Pcs) 3 SSP(1 Pcs) 10 SSP(1 Pcs) 8 SSP(1 Pcs) 6 SSP(1 Pcs) Millet - 14 SSP( 1 kg) 6 SSP( 1 kg) 16 SSP( 1 kg) 16 SSP( 1 kg) - 6 SSP( 1 kg) Vegetables 11 SSP(Bdl) 12SSP(Bdl) 10 SSP(Bdl) 6 SSP(Bdl) 4 SSP(Bdl) 5 SSP(Bdl) 5 SSP(Bdl) 5 SSP(Bdl) Bread 1SSP(2 pcs) 1SSP(2 pcs) 3 SSP (2 pcs) 1 SSP (2 pcs) 1 SSP(2 pcs) 1 SSP (2 pcs) 2 SSP(2 pcs) 2 SSP (2 pcs) Hadas 13SSP( 1 kg) 11SSP(1 kg) 15 SSP( 1 kg) 13 SSP( 1 kg) 10 SSP( 1 kg) 13 SSP( 1 kg) 8 SSP( 1 kg) 13 SSP( 1 kg) Oils 9SSP(1 Liter) 12 SSP(1 Liter) 13 SSP(1 Liter) 8 SSP(1 Lit er) 10 SSP(1 Liter) 12 SSP(1 Liter) 9 SSP(1 Liter) 13 SSP(1 Liter) Salts 7SSP(1 kg) 7 SSP( 1 kg) 8 SSP(1 kg) 7 SSP(1 kg) 6 SSP(1 kg) 7 SSP(1 kg) 3 SSP(1 kg) 8 SSP(1 kg) Cereals ------Banana 15SSP(4 Pcs) 15SSP( 4 Pcs) ------Sugar 10 SSP( 0.2 10 SSP( 0.2 kg) 16 SSP( 0.2 kg) 12 SSP( 0.2 - - - - kg) kg)

World Vision South Sudan

16 | P a g e

• 90% Of the traders in Renk /Wonthau purchase their products from the Sudanese border which is closer and cheaper to transport their products. 75% Of the Malakal traders purchase their products through Renk town and Gambella and 25% purchase from within Malakal itself (mostly petty traders from the bigger traders). In Kodok, traders purchase their supplies mainly from Renk town (70%) and 30% purchase from other locations. Traders in Lul purchase their trading goods from Wau Shilluk (10%); Malakal (15%) and Renk town (75%). Traders and data show that Renk town is a major purchasing area for the traders in Malakal, Kodok and Lul.

There are two main factors affecting price fluctuations in the surveyed areas: seasonal conditions and changes in (in-) security. Table 9 show how seasonal and the security factors have affected the prices of commodities in the region. Despite Renk /Wonthau being near the border, their prices are also affected by rains and insecurity,

Table 9: Factors Affecting Prices

Location Factor Affecting Prices Seasonal(Rains) Insecurity Yes No Yes No Renk /Wonthau 14 6 12 8 Malakal 16 4 14 6 Kodok 16 4 19 1 Lul 17 3 18 2 Total 63 17 63 17 Percentage 79% 21% 79% 21%

• Traders presently restock their shops at various intervals depending on their needs. Table 10 below shows the present ability and the ability to restock in case they have to double or triple their stock 30% of the traders presently restock there shops on a weekly basis (71% of these are in Renk/Wonthau); 30% have the ability to double their stocks weekly, while 18% have the ability to triple their stock weekly. Renk/Wonthau traders have the most restocking ability out of the total number of traders interviewed (43% of Renk/Wonthau traders can restock within a week).

Table 10: Restocking Ability of Traders

Present Restocking Double Restocking Triple Restocking Location Ability Ability Ability

Weeks Weeks Weeks Weeks Weeks Weeks Unable Unable Unable Every 2 Every 3 Every 2 Every 3 Every 2 Every 3 Every Weekly Weekly Weekly Renk /Wonthau 17 1 2 0 11 5 1 3 7 8 4 1 Malakal 4 4 11 1 6 6 6 2 2 8 3 7 Kodok 0 7 13 0 4 4 9 5 1 3 13 3 Lul 3 5 12 0 3 9 4 4 4 7 5 4 Total 24 17 38 1 24 24 20 14 14 26 25 15 Percentage 30% 21% 48% 1% 30% 30% 25% 18% 18% 33% 31% 19%

• Diversity and availability of food commodities within community is important in order to determine the plausibility of implementing a voucher-based intervention. 17% of the traders believe they are the only ones selling their particular food products, 22% believe that less than 5 traders have similar products as them, 28% believe that more than 5 traders have similar products as them and 35% do not know what other traders are selling in their shops/stores/stalls.

• 24% Of the traders do not know their influence on the market, 21% of the traders believe that their ‘share’ of the market is at least 20%, while 28% believe that they own between 0-10% of the market as table 12 below illustrates.

World Vision South Sudan

17 | P a g e

Table 11: Market Share

Market Share Location Wonthau Malakal Kodok Lul

% of Total Traders Traders Traders Traders Traders

Do Not Know 8 3 8 0 19 24% 0-10% 6 7 5 4 22 28% 11 -20% 3 3 2 9 17 21% 21 -30% 1 4 2 4 11 14% 31 -50% 1 1 1 3 6 8% >50% 1 2 2 0 5 6%

5.2.2. Payment and Transport

The below table on transportation discusses transport from the traders perspective and knowledge of the environment in which they operate. 27% of the traders stated that the IDP area/PoC is within 30 minutes of their shops. Almost all of the customers either ride a donkey cart (27%) or Walk (47%) from their shops. 48% of the traders agreed that it costs between 5-10 SSP from their shop to the nearest IDP areas.

Table 12: Transportation

Travel Time to Percentage Mode of Percentage Cost of Percentage nearest PoC/IDP area Transport Transport 30 minutes or less 27% Walk 47% 5-10 SSP 48% 1 hour 13 % Donkey Cart 27% 11 -20 SSP 15% 1ho ur 30 minutes 15 % Motorbike 13% 21 -30 SSP 15 % 2 hours and above 18% Boats/Canoe 8% >30 SSP 15 % Do not know 27% Do not Know 5% Do not Know 5%

• On average 50% of the traders would prefer being paid in cash at their locations while 14% would opt for cash payment in Juba, 4% would accept cheque and 30% would accept a bank transfer of funds. Observation and key informants believe that the best payment options despite these responses would be payment of cash at the location so as to avoid payment and restocking delays. Despite this trend, some traders who do not have bank accounts are willing to open one and receive a transfer of funds if selected to participate in the project. It is important to note that at the time of these interviews there were no banks operating in Upper Nile State, therefore traders are operating on a cash basis except for those who have accounts in Sudan.

Table 13: Payment Preference

Opening a South Sudan South Sudan Payment Option Bank Account Bank Bank Account Account Location Cash Cash Payment Bank Payment Cheque None Yes No Yes No Yes No at Transfer in Juba Location Renk /Wonth 3 14 1 2 0 8 12 3 5 5 7 au Malakal 4 6 1 8 1 5 15 5 15 7 8 Kodok 2 10 0 8 0 8 12 8 12 15 5 Lul 2 10 1 6 0 5 15 5 15 15 5 Total 11 40 3 24 1 26 54 21 47 42 25 Percentage 14% 50% 4% 30% 1% 33% 67% 26% 59% 53% 31%

• 33% Of the traders have bank accounts and 67% do not have bank accounts. Out of those who have bank accounts, 26% said they have an account with a South Sudanese bank and 59%% of the traders do not have a

World Vision South Sudan

18 | P a g e

South Sudanese bank account. However, 53% of those who do not have a South Sudanese account are willing to open one to participate in a voucher-based intervention and 31% are not willing to open a South Sudanese bank account to participate in such an intervention.

• 73% Of the traders would be able to stock up on agreed food stocks if selected on their own, while 27% would not be able to stock food products. Those that would be able to stock on food stocks would use their own money (28%), borrow money from a bank (45%), borrow money from friends and family(8%) and unable to stock up(19%). Although there is no bank operating in Upper Nile at present, traders said they would borrow from banks in Sudan (It is to note however that there are no banks currently in the State)

Table 14: Access to Credit and Notice Period

Access to Credit Notice Needed Borrow Borrow Location Own from from Unable 1 week 2 weeks 1 Month Money Friends/ Bank Family Renk/ Wontha 3 14 1 2 8 12 3 u Malakal 4 6 1 9 5 9 6 Kodok 8 7 2 3 6 7 9 Lul 7 9 2 2 8 5 2 Total 22 36 6 16 27 33 20 Percentage 28% 45% 7% 20 % 34 % 41% 25%

• 34% Of the traders would need 1 week notice to get more food stocks for the program, 41% of them would need 2 weeks’ notice and 25% would need 1 month notice to get more food stocks in their shops.

• 70% Of the traders are willing to go to the nearest wharf or airfield near them in order to collect payments if they were selected for a voucher-based intervention while 30% are not willing to go anywhere because they stated they would rather have their payments come to them (just as when people come to their shops to buy). FGDs and Key Informants observed that they would be willing to go collect payments from these locations based on pre-project arrangements and contracts.

• In Renk/Wonthau, 45% of the traders said they would still be able to restock if their payments are delayed by 1 month, in Malakal, only 20% of the traders will still be able to restock if their payments are delayed by 1 month, In Kodok, 70% of the traders said they will still be able to restock if their payments are delayed by 1 month and 85% of the traders in Lul said they will still be able to restock if their payments are delayed by 1 month. This would enable a continuous supply of food to the beneficiaries should there be a delay in payments to traders. FGDs and Key Informants observed that delay in payments would affect the traders’ ability to restock in Lul.

• In Renk/Wonthau: 25% of the traders are able to take one day to transport food stocks from their suppliers to their shops, 45% of the traders would take more than 1 week and 20% will take less than 1 week to move food stocks from their suppliers to their shops. In Malakal: 10% of the traders are able to take one day to transport food stocks from their supplier to their shop, 60% of the traders would take more than 1 week and 30% will take less than 1 week to move food stocks from their suppliers to their shops. In Kodok; 40% of the traders are able to take one day to transport food stocks from their supplier to their shop, 15% of the traders would take more than 1 week and 45% will take less than 1 week to move food stocks from their suppliers to their shops. In Lul 45% of the traders are able to take one day to transport food stocks from their supplier to their shop, 35% of the traders would take more than 1 week and 20% will take less than 1 week to move food stocks from their suppliers to their shops. It is assumed that the supplier on the Sudan side can cope with the increase in purchase; hence the grounds for early discussions with the traders to enable them establish proper supply and restocking mechanisms.

• In Renk/Wonthau only 20% of the traders are willing to hold prices steady for 2 months, in Malakal 45% of the traders are willing to hold prices steady for 2 months. In Kodok and Lul 80% of the traders are willing to hold prices steady for 2 months. While majority of the traders are willing to hold prices for long periods of time in Kodok and Lul.

World Vision South Sudan

19 | P a g e

5.3. Beneficiaries

5.3.1. IDPs perception on Voucher-Based Intervention

The IDPs are willing and interested in participating in the voucher-based intervention. They explained that at times, most of the food they receive during distributions is not diversified and does not enable them to produce a balanced meal. They would be glad and welcome a more diversified food basket that provides them the option to select different types of food. They also emphasized the opportunity it provides them to maintain their dignity and avoid the stress of waiting in lines for food. They believe that the markets in their areas can sustain such an intervention. Focus Group Discussions show that IDPs in Renk, Malakal, Kodok and Lul would welcome a voucher-based intervention.

5.3.2. General Characteristics

220 Beneficiaries (55 in each location) were surveyed to get a snapshot of their perception and to triangulate information gained from traders and key informants. The average age of the interviewees was 40 years. 67% of the respondents were females and 33% were males. The beneficiaries interviewed were predominately females in the communities and amongst the IDPs, because they are the food preparers in the homes. The average household size among the beneficiaries is made up of 5 persons, while 43% of these households are taking care of orphans.

39% Of the households had a chronically ill or disabled child in the last 3 months and 34% of the households had a chronically ill or disabled adult, 47% of the household heads are in good health, while 53% of them are ill and have no way to carry out casual work to earn extra income.

65% Of the beneficiaries are married, 3% are divorced, 16% are widower/widowed, and 16% are either separated or single head of households.

Table 15: Relationship of Respondent to Household Head

Relationship Renk/Wonthau Malakal Kodok Lul Total Percentage

Household Head/ 45 15 48 50 158 72% Father /Mother Child 4 30 0 1 35 16% Brother/Sister 5 5 7 4 21 10% Ot 6her 1 5 0 0 6 3% 220 100%

5.3.3. Household Vulnerability/Welfare

• In order to adjust to the new hardships due to the crisis, 43% of the families eat once daily, 50% eat less food and the rest have enough food daily.

• 73% Of the beneficiaries would want to use vouchers to be able to pay for food; 22% want to be able to pay for NFIs and Shelter; 5% wants to be able to pay for water; and 12% wants to be able to pay for health services. FGD participants mainly selected food as the option they would choose.

Table 16: Preferred Usage of Voucher

Usage of Voucher Location Health Food NFIs & Shelter Water Services Renk /Wonthau 41 8 4 2 Malakal 20 11 4 20 Kodok 47 3 1 4 Lul 53 0 2 0 Total 161 22 11 26 Percentage 73% 10% 5% 12%

• 55% Of the beneficiaries prefer their food assistance to come through food distribution and 45% would like to use a cash- or voucher-based intervention for their food assistance. Such interventions are new to the

World Vision South Sudan

20 | P a g e

population in Upper Nile. Therefore any cash- or voucher-based intervention needs to ensure a strong accountability system to educate beneficiaries about the project objectives.

• 52% Of the beneficiaries prefer their NFI assistance to come through items distribution and 48% would like to use a cash based system. Beneficiaries are more familiar with item distributions than cash- and voucher based interventions and as a result might be hesitant to opt for cash-and voucher-based interventions. The project would need to carry out a lot of community sensitization to enable them understand the intervention type. Table 16 above shows the beneficiaries’ preferred use of the voucher, while table 17 shows the beneficiaries preferred distribution method.

Table 17: Preferred Method of Assistance

Food Assistance NFIs Assistance Cash - Location Cash-Based Distributions Based Distributions Voucher Voucher Renk /Wonthau 22 33 24 31 Malakal 18 37 25 30 Kodok 32 23 33 22 Lul 28 27 24 31 Total 100 120 106 114 Percentage 45% 55% 48% 52%

• 41% Of the beneficiaries have no income and depend mainly on handouts and NGO aids for survival (others depend on casual labor, petty trading and remittances) , while 72% of all income is used for food amongst the respondents.

Table 18: Income & Expenditure Status Wont Wont / /

Income Status Renk hau Malakal Kodok Lul Total % Expenditur eStatus Renk hau Malakal Kodok Lul Total % 3 No Income 30 11 14 91 41% Staple Food 39 18 22 30 112 51% 6 Non -Staple Remittances 2 0 6 1 9 4% 7 17 10 10 46 21% Food Household Crop Sales 1 3 1 4 9 4% 1 5 10 5 21 10% Goods(NFI) Casual Labor 3 5 14 19 40 18% Health 6 11 13 5 35 16% NG O 1 5 3 3 12 5% Travel 2 4 0 0 6 3% Assistance Livestock Sales 2 5 3 1 11 5% 220 100% Skilled Trade 4 3 2 0 9 4% Sale of Food 0 4 0 0 4 2% Aid Petty Trade 6 0 15 14 35 16% Total 220 100%

• 72% Of the respondents would like the voucher to be given to the women in the households, 15% said it should be given to the men and 13% said it should be given to the children. The explanation for this is that women make food preparation decisions and the children are those in most need of care and food.

Table 19 shows the number of the beneficiaries purchasing a particular food commodity and the commodity choices that they would like to see in a voucher basket.

World Vision South Sudan

21 | P a g e

Table 19: Choice of Food Basket Items

Choice of food basket items

Available on the Market Food Basket Choice

Number of Number of Food Commodity Percentage Percentage Persons Persons

Fish 148 67% 124 56% Beef 131 60% 85 39% Bread 122 55% 112 51% Peanuts/Groundnuts 98 45% 100 45% Hadas 122 55% 109 50% Oils 144 65% 132 60% Cereals 79 36% 107 49% Fruits 77 35% 88 40% Sugar 140 64% 121 55% Rice 120 55% 129 59% Millet 24 11% 71 32% Vegetables 107 49% 105 48% Beans/Cowpeas 92 42% 100 45% Sorghum 149 68% 138 63% Salt 128 58% 127 58%

World Vision South Sudan

22 | P a g e

6. Conclusions

Table 20: Opportunity and Rationale for Voucher-Based Interventions per location

Location Opportunity for Rationale voucher-based intervention • Market is the most diversified • Traders have confidence and ability to restock quickly from Sudan(6 hours’ drive) • Payment options can be negotiated Yes • Has sufficient number of beneficiaries to ensure blanket Renk/Wonthau (If security remains coverage(13500 IDPs) stable) • Traders have the best potential to hold prices because they would have higher turnover • Local purchase area for cereals for WFP • Beneficiaries have not received much assistance from NGOs as only Medair and IOM are present • Market is 2 nd most diversified after Renk • Traders have confidence and ability to restock; Yes • Payment options can be negotiated Kodok (If security remains • Restocking is possible though difficult with the onset of the stable) rains • Supply area for Malakal, Lul, Rom and Melut • Market lacks the diversity needed as compared to Renk and Kodok • The towns above are the supply routes for Malakal Malakal No • Restocking is not really easily possible due to seasonal factors • The large number of beneficiaries may not ensure blanket coverage • Market lack a diversity of food commodities to support a cash-or voucher-based intervention; although it has a few more commodities than the Rom Market Lul No • Traders lack the ability to restock due to security challenges with the supply routes • A beneficiary snapshot shows that beneficiaries would prefer in-kind distributions to food vouchers • Markets lack a diversity of food commodities to su pport the project; • Traders lack the ability to restock due to security challenges with the supply routes Melut & Rom No • A beneficiary snapshot shows that beneficiaries would prefer in-kind distributions to food vouchers • Both these locations may have to be re-assessed due to the access constraints during the time of this rapid market assessment Note: In the event of a breakdown in security these dynamics will change.

On the overall, despite the Renk and Kodok markets having the capability to host a voucher project the programmatic conditions needed for the implementation of a voucher project namely stability (security) is lacking. The overall conclusion of this survey is that we find alternative ways to assist the IDPs rather than a Food Voucher project. The undermining effects of instability and insecurity on a voucher-based intervention will have to be taken into serious consideration before such an intervention is initiated.

1. Voucher projects have the added value of reinstalling a pre-existing relationship between people and markets. The fluidity of the security situation causing IDPs and Traders to move does not seem to be situation seems not the ideal situation to implement a voucher project. Supplies of pulses, oil, salt and fish appear to be sufficient to sustain a voucher-based intervention, especially in Renk, Wonthau and Kodok. However, availability of fruit and vegetables in markets is minimal and it is uncertain if they can sustain a voucher-based intervention.

World Vision South Sudan

23 | P a g e

2. This market assessment has not researched the host community. Nonetheless there is a need to take host community needs to be taken into consideration when designing a project programming decision so as to avoid raising tensions the IDPs in an already fragile context. Vouchers have to meet the needs of beneficiaries, enable the local economy or host population through the injection of cash. It is recommended to conduct a Do No Harm analysis and conflict sensitivity analysis prior to the selection of beneficiaries.

3. Renk/Wonthau area has the most viable and most diverse market at this point that will support a voucher-based project followed by Kodok. The traders in these two locations (Kodok and Renk/Wonthau) have the fastest means and best access to restock. These traders have easier payment option routes. Payments of vendors in these two locations would also be easier as they are willing to negotiate terms and conditions on prices and payments. A Voucher-based intervention would work better in Renk/Wonthau IDP area and Kodok as opposed to Malakal, Rom or Melut.

4. On average approximately 52% of Key Informants, Traders and Beneficiaries in Renk and Kodok agree that it will be good to have cash based food voucher interventions. However, this also means that under half (48%) of the traders, key informants and beneficiaries in Renk and Kodok do not agree with the intervention.

5. 60% of key informants, traders and beneficiaries in all locations feel that the emergency needs of the people are likely to be met by cash- or voucher-based interventions rather than by the distributions of items, while 40% feel it will be met by the distributions of items.

6. Over 97% of all respondents believe that as long as security remains stable the markets will support the voucher-based program. However, the design of such a project has to take into consideration that it would have to work with some traders with both permanent and semi-permanent structures. 100% of the key informants agreed that should the insecurity (in the event of active fighting) continue cash- and voucher-based interventions will be negatively impacted, because traders and IDPs will move to other safer locations. As continued insecurity in Upper Nile is a likely scenario, security and its impact on voucher-based programming should be critically reviewed before venturing in this type of programming. Based on the above scenario, it is recommended to pilot the Food Voucher project in a more stable state.

7. Prices have remained relatively stable over the past 2 months and the voucher program will also add some stability in commodity prices during its lifetime because traders that would participate in the voucher program will have to keep their prices stable at an agreed cost for specific intervals during their participation within the project.

8. Timely payment of vendors is crucial to the implementation of a voucher-based intervention. While most of the vendors would prefer cash payments, they are also willing to open bank accounts and negotiate other payment options. Any voucher-based intervention would have to take into consideration this option and set up appropriate sensitization and accountability mechanisms. It would also have to negotiate with vendors who are willing to set up modes of payment that will be easier within the operating context. Due to the lack of banks in Upper Nile state a voucher-based intervention should consider alternatives, such as payment in cash at the locations.

World Vision South Sudan