DOCSLIB.ORG

Kapoeta Counties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kapoeta Counties Multi-sector Household Survey - Kapoeta Counties March 2021 Ochola James © AVSI, 2020 - all rights reserved Background and Rationale The survey was conducted on December 2020 in three counties of greater Kapoeta (Kapoeta North Kapoeta South and Kapoeta East) with the purposely to; - Get household information on major sectors of human development of • Health and Wash, Livelihood, Education and protection - To get household needs and have informed intervention strategies Methodology 12 payam were randomly selected 2 in Kapoeta East, 5 in Kapoeta South and 5 for Kapoeta North. 540 households were surveyed. Certain Payam of Kapoeta east and north were excluded from the random selection due to logistical reasons. The survey questionnaires focus mainly on: • Livelihood, Food security, Health-hygiene promotion, Education, Wash, Agriculture, Livestock, Market, Household asset, Migration, Association, Conflict and protection. • ECW1 (multi indicator pastoral education) survey Two-stage cluster sampling: • 1st stage - selection of villages (based on probability proportional to population size (PPS) and stratification). • 2nd stage - selection of households (based on “improved random-walk” method) Meeting with local authorities and community leaders representing all 3 counties was conducted in order to get the population size of all the payam and bomas Geographic Location of greater Kapoeta Region • Greater Kapoeta comprises of 3 counties (Kapoeta north, Kapoeta South and Kapoeta East) • The communities are purely pastoral they mainly rear cattle, sheep/goat in hundreds. • The main settlement are in Riwoto, Narus and Kapoeta town. Main Findings • 10% of the population are severely hit by hunger while 60% are in moderate hunger. This is because household Food reserve get exhausted by July, August, September, October and worst in December. This attributed to low production due small cultivation (1 ha of private land). Consequently reduced accessibility to meal a day to 1 time for adult and 2 times for children especially in Kapoeta north. • Increasing challenge in water accessibility to over 41% of households, the existing boreholes are said to have broken down. The distance to boreholes is 30- 1 hour walk and the time spent to fetch water is 10-30 minutes. • Greater need to support education system in greater Kapoeta, the survey result shows that 94% of population are not educated and 83% cannot read or write. This means the trend is likely to continue unless major intervention is put in place in term of upgrade of schools (P.1 to P.8), strengthening SMC and PTA bodies, school feeding program etc. • Agriculture is the main source of survival to 62% of people in greater Kapoeta • Largely, women are more engaged in livelihood/income of the family than men. Almost all livelihood activities are done by women, except hunting, fishing or gathering of natural product and Livestock rearing/defence. • 53% of households in greater Kapoeta need support in education systems • 6% of children are likely not to be enrolled in school as a coping strategy • 62% of households do not know where to refer GBV cases • 18% of households have a “poor” Food Consumption Score (FCS) while 25% have a “borderline” FCS. • The worst months of hunger are July, August, September and October. • Mortality rate in children under five stand at more than 3% leading in Kapoeta east and south. • The survey confirms 42% of mothers have to walk more than 1 hour for pre and post natal care worst in Kapoeta East • Knowledge on infant and young child feeding (IYCF) is very low in greater Kapoeta. • Only 17% of mothers practice exclusive breastfeeding (0-5.9 months) • 53% of mothers don’t initiate early breastfeeding • Infant and young children are introduced to solid, semi-solid or soft food below 6 months. The report shows only 27% introduce after 6- 8.9 months • 41% of households agree that boreholes are not functioning/broken down and most water points don’t have water committee • In greater Kapoeta, 88% households do not have toilet, they use bush for defecation with no particular rules, the greater percentage is in Kapoeta North. • 87% of households reported GBV threat directed to women/girls in greater Kapoeta • The reason children 10-15 years are not attending school is early pregnancy/ marriage, • 79% of the households cultivate less than 1 Ha of private land • The mostly grown crops in private and common land includes - Sorghum long variety most preferred, maize, simsim and sorghum short variety • 85% of farmers practice traditional system of farming, they never received any training in crop or vegetable production. • 67% have no access to credit not even local saving groups/association • The main problems related to livestock farming in greater Kapoeta is pest and diseases as well as lack of veterinary services • There is a lot of gap in technical and vocational education and training in greater Kapoeta, little has been done in the area of Adult education, income generation/entrepreneurship trainings. • 21% cases of sexual assault and rape is recorded among the problems facing households in Kapoeta north out of 18% total cases in greater Kapoeta. Livelihood Main source of living • 62% of households in greater Kapoeta, their main source of survival is agriculture being more practised by 70% of households in Kapoeta north • The major crop grown are; sorghum and maize sources of living Kapoeta North Kapoeta South Kapoeta East COUNTY Production of basic/staple crops (sorghum, maize, 70% 53% 68% 62% etc) Sale of firewood or charcoal 13% 10% 6% 10% Sale of alcoholic beverages 2% 13% 11% 9% Livestock and Sale of livestock 7% 12% 5% 8% Other 3% 3% 2% 3% Sale of animal products (milk etc) 5% 0% 2% 2% Skilled or salaried labour 0% 4% 0% 1% Other petty trading/small business (tea seller, 0% 3% 1% 1% kiosk, sales of handicraft etc) Production of cash crops or other products 0% 0% 3% 1% (vegetables, groundnuts, etc) Livelihood • However, 90% of total production is for self consumption • 6% of the gains is exchanged with other products and 5% is sold to get cash. • Interestingly, because of production in small scale, 62% of the cash is used to buy food and other basic items. Whereas Kapoeta North, 100% is used to buy food. • 33% is spent on other things for the family member Kapoe Kapo Kapoet COUNT Use of cash (% of HHs) ta eta a North Y South East To buy food and other basic items (for 100% 45% 60% 62% instance soap) To buy basic things as well other things for family members (grinding0% of45% grains,40% school33% fees) To buy things for the family as well as instruments for 0%your livelihood9% activity0% 5% Livelihood • Livelihood level in greater Kapoeta worsen in 2020 compared to previous years. The causes point to loss of crop/harvest 40%, Kapoeta north is more affected 53%. • 30% is due to inflation/low prices and high prices in the market • 16% loss of livestock • 5% due to drought Changes in livelihood level over last Kapoeta Kapoeta Kapoeta COUNTY year and causes of worsening North South East Yes, it has IMPROVED 17% 7% 2% 9% it stayed THE SAME 38% 38% 41% 39% No, it has WORSENED 45% 55% 56% 52% Loss of crops/harvest 53% 35% 34% 40% Due to inflation/high prices 7% 37% 43% 30% Loss of livestock 26% 13% 9% 16% Drought 7% 5% 3% 5% Livelihood Adult contribution to livelihood/income of the family • Largely, women are more engaged in livelihood/income of the family than men. Almost all livelihood activities are done by women, except hunting, fishing or gathering of natural product and Livestock rearing/defence. Men contribution women contribution Main Occupation for Adults Livelihood activities % Livelihood activities % 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Caring family members/Family duties 80% Caring family members/Family duties 91% Cultivation individually 32% Cultivation individually 68% Caring family members/Family duties Hunting, Fishing or Gathering of natural products 35% Hunting, Fishing or Gathering vegetables/fruits/other Cultivation individually 23% natural products Livestock rearing or defense 65% Hunting, Fishing or Gathering of… Livestock rearing and defense 4% Production of local alcohol 9% Livestock rearing or defense Production of local alcohol 54% Casual Labour (work for different people in Production of local alcohol 6% different days) Casual Labour (help different people in different days) 6% Casual Labour (work for different… Cultivation in group or in association with other 13% Cultivation in group or in association with other farmers 28% farmers Cultivation in group or in association… Producing or selling firewood/charcoal/bamboo 8% Producing or selling firewood/charcoal/bamboo 49% Producing or selling… Petty trading (tea seller, kiosk, sales of handicraft) or other Petty trading (tea seller, kiosk, sales of handicraft) 5% Petty trading (tea seller, kiosk, sales of… 5% small business (tailor, etc.) or small business (tailor) Gathering or selling of items for… Gathering or selling of items for construction Gathering or selling of items for construction (stone, poles, 6% 26% (stone, poles, etc) etc) House boy/House girl House boy/House girl 1% House boy/House girl 11% Other Other 1% Other 1% Adult Males Adult Females Livelihood Adolescent contribution to livelihood/income of the family • 70% of adolescent contribute majorly in caring for family members/family adult • 39% contribute to cultivation (scaring birds) • 37% of boys greatly contribute to livestock rearing and defence. Livelihood activities % Cultivation 39% Caring family members/Family duties 70% Hunting,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • United Nations Nations Unies
    United Nations Nations Unies Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Humanitarian Coordinator in South Sudan condemns killing of an aid worker in Budi, Eastern Equatoria (Juba, 13 May 2021) The Humanitarian Coordinator in South Sudan, Alain Noudéhou, has condemned the killing of an aid worker in Budi, Eastern Equatoria, and called for authorities and communities to ensure that humanitarian personnel can move safely along roads and deliver assistance to the most vulnerable people. On 12 May, an aid worker was killed when criminals fired at a clearly marked humanitarian vehicle. The vehicle was part of a team of international non-governmental organizations and South Sudanese government health workers traveling to a health facility. The team was driving from Chukudum to Kapoeta in Budi County in an area that has seen several roadside ambushes this year. “I am shocked by this violent act and send my condolences to the family and colleagues of the deceased. The roads are a vital connection between humanitarian organizations and communities in need, and we must be able to move safely across the country without fear,” Mr. Noudéhou said and added: “I call on the Government to strengthen law enforcement along these roads.” This is the first aid worker killed in South Sudan in 2021. In 2020, nine aid workers were killed. *** Note to editors To learn more about humanitarian access in South Sudan, see the first quarterly access snapshot of 2021 here: https://bit.ly/3dZQtGw For further information, please contact: Emmi Antinoja, Head of Communications and Information Management, +211 92 129 6333 [email protected] Anthony Burke, Public Information Officer, +211 92 240 6014 and [email protected] OCHA press releases are available at www.unocha.org/south-sudan or www.reliefweb.int.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Assessment of the Mining Industry in South Sudan: Towards a Framework for Transparency and Accountability
    RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE MINING INDUSTRY IN SOUTH SUDAN: TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY Peter Adwok Nyaba July 2019 Appreciation and acknowledgement This study, “Risk Assessment of the Mining Industry in South Sudan: Towards a ​ Framework for Transparency and Accountability”, was commissioned by Ebony Center ​ for Strategic Studies. It commenced in the second week of May 2019 and was completed by the first week of June. Mr. Azaria Gillo, a geologist working in the Ministry of Mining was my research assistant and his contribution led to the success of the research work. I thank him very much. The preliminary report of this study was discussed in an Ebony Centre’s function DPF/TF on Saturday 20 July 2019 attended by more than a hundred participants. The Under-Secretaries of the Ministries of Mining, Forestry and Environment as well as the Director of Environmental and Natural Resources Program in the Sudd Institute were the main discussants. Their technical and professional views were incorporated into the final report. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to appreciate and acknowledge the assistance rendered to us by the Under-Secretary, Dr. Andu Ezbon Adde, in granting permission to collect information and data from the Ministry of Mining data base and writing letters to the State Governments of Kapoeta and Juba to assist us in the research. Last but not least, my thanks and appreciation go to Ebony Center for Strategic Studies, for availing me the opportunity to undertake an exercise that is likely to contribute towards strengthening the institutions and instruments of the mining industry in the Republic of South Sudan.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Rinderpest Control in Southern Sudan 1989-2000
    Review of Rinderpest Control in Southern Sudan 1989-2000 Prepared for the Community-based Animal Health and Epidemiology (CAPE) Unit of the Pan African Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE) Bryony Jones March 2001 Acknowledgements The information contained in this document has been collected over the years by southern Sudanese animal health workers, UNICEF/OLS Livestock Project staff, Tufts University consultants, and the staff of NGOs that have supported community-based animal health projects in southern Sudan (ACROSS, ACORD, ADRA, DOT, GAA, NPA, Oxfam-GB, Oxfam-Quebec, SC-UK, VETAID, VSF-B, VSF-CH, VSF-G, Vetwork Services Trust, World Relief). The individuals involved are too numerous to name, but their hard work and contribution of information is gratefully acknowledged. The data from the early years of the OLS Livestock Programme (1993 to 1996) was collated by Tim Leyland, formerly UNICEF/OLS Livestock Project Officer. Disease outbreak information from 1998 to date has been collated by Dr Gachengo Matindi, FAO/OLS Livestock Officer (formerly UNICEF/OLS Livestock Officer). Rinderpest serology and virus testing has mainly been carried out by National Veterinary Research Centre, Muguga, Nairobi. Any errors or omissions in this review are the fault of the author. If any reader has additional information to correct an error or omission the author would be grateful to receive this information. For further information contact: CAPE Unit PACE Programme OAU/IBAR PO Box 30786 Nairobi Tel: Nairobi 226447 Fax: Nairobi 226565 E mail: [email protected] Or the author: Bryony Jones PO Box 13434 Nairobi Kenya Tel: Nairobi 580799 E mail: [email protected] 2 CONTENTS Page 1.
    [Show full text]
  • South Sudan Country Operational Plan (COP)
    FY 2015 South Sudan Country Operational Plan (COP) The following elements included in this document, in addition to “Budget and Target Reports” posted separately on www.PEPFAR.gov, reflect the approved FY 2015 COP for South Sudan. 1) FY 2015 COP Strategic Development Summary (SDS) narrative communicates the epidemiologic and country/regional context; methods used for programmatic design; findings of integrated data analysis; and strategic direction for the investments and programs. Note that PEPFAR summary targets discussed within the SDS were accurate as of COP approval and may have been adjusted as site- specific targets were finalized. See the “COP 15 Targets by Subnational Unit” sheets that follow for final approved targets. 2) COP 15 Targets by Subnational Unit includes approved COP 15 targets (targets to be achieved by September 30, 2016). As noted, these may differ from targets embedded within the SDS narrative document and reflect final approved targets. Approved FY 2015 COP budgets by mechanism and program area, and summary targets are posted as a separate document on www.PEPFAR.gov in the “FY 2015 Country Operational Plan Budget and Target Report.” South Sudan Country/Regional Operational Plan (COP/ROP) 2015 Strategic Direction Summary August 27, 2015 Table of Contents Goal Statement 1.0 Epidemic, Response, and Program Context 1.1 Summary statistics, disease burden and epidemic profile 1.2 Investment profile 1.3 Sustainability Profile 1.4 Alignment of PEPFAR investments geographically to burden of disease 1.5 Stakeholder engagement
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Equatoria State
    ! Ea!stern Equatoria State Map ! ! ! ! ! ! 32°E 33°E 34°E 35°E ! ! ! Makuac ! Lyodein ! Pengko River Tigaro Mewun Bor ! ! ! ! Brong ! Boma o ! Anyidi ! Marongodoa Towoth ! ! ! n Macdit R " Gurgo i Deng Shol . Kang ! ! ! en Upper Boma e Kwal Tiu ! Karita Nyelichu ! Gurbi ! ! ! Balwan M Tukls Nongwoli Pajok ! ! . Gwa!!lla ! ! Aluk Kolnyang ! Katanich Titong R Munini ! R. K ! ! Sudan ang Wowa ! Aliab ! en ! Logoda ! Malek Bor South ! ! Jonglei Pibor !Rigl Chilimun N N ° ! Pariak Lowelli Katchikan Kichepo ° ! Pariak ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! 6 ! a Lochiret River Bellel l l ! Awerial i ! t Kenamuke Swamp ! ! ! o PanabangW L r Ngechele ! . Neria Ethiopia a h Kanopir ! Natibok Kabalatigo South i R ! ! ! w t Central e ! Moru Kimod G ! Rongada African Sudan N . i R R Tombi l Republic ! e . N R. Gwojo-Adung a Ch ! ro Kassangor alb ! Tiarki ! o !Bori ng ! ! ! Moru Kerri Kuron Gigging ! ! ! Mun! i " ! Karn Ethi Kerkeng ! ! ! ! Nakadocwa Democratic i Gemmaiza r i Republic of Congo t Kobowen Swamp Moru Ethi Borichadi Bokuna ! Poko i ! ! Uganda Wani Mika ! ! Kassengo ! Selemani ! Pagar S ! Nabwel ! Chabong Kenya ! Tukara . ! ! R River Nakua ! Kenyi Terekeka ! Moru Angbin ! Mukajo ! ! Bulu Koli Gali ) Awakot Lotimor ! t ! ! ! ! Akitukomoi i Tumu River Gera ! e ! Nanyangachor ! l Napalap l Kalaruz ! Namoropus ! i ! t ! ETHIOPIA Kangitabok Lomokori o Eyata Moru Kolinyagkopil Logono Terekeka ! ! ! ! Wit ! L ! " ( Natilup Swamp Magara Umm Gura Mwanyakapin ! ! ! R n Abuilingakine Lomareng Plateau . ! ! R N ! a R ak y . Juban l u ! ! Rambo Lokodopoto!k . ! ! a L ( a N Lomuleye Katirima Nai A S ! ! o a k ! Badigeru Swamp River Lokuja a Losagam Musha Lukwatuk Pass Doinyoro East ch ! ! ! p ! ! ! o i Buboli r ) ! o L o Pongo River Lokorowa ! Watha Peth Hills .
    [Show full text]
  • Kapoeta Road Monitoring South Sudan Displacement Crisis Kapoeta, Eastern Equatoria State, South Sudan April 2020
    Kapoeta Road Monitoring South Sudan Displacement Crisis Kapoeta, Eastern Equatoria State, South Sudan April 2020 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY Kapoeta town is located in Kapoeta South County, Eastern Equatoria State, near South Sudan ain movement leaving GENERAL CROSS BORDER MOVEMENT TRENDS apoeta Sudan’s border with Kenya. Since the beginning of the crisis in South Sudan in December Average daily number of individuals departing (red) and arriving (grey) with the intention to stay longer than six months, April 2019 to April 2020 Ethiopia ain movement arriving 2013, Kapoeta town has been a gateway through which many internally displaced persons in apoeta C.A.R. (IDPs) have passed on their way to refugee camps in Kenya. Lopa 15 et popation inos This factsheet provides results from the REACH road monitoring exercise in Kapoeta town. D.R.C. Kenya 12 et popation otos Uganda Kapoeta REACH monitors two bus/car parks where travellers are travelling to and from Torit/Juba and Kapoeta East 9 Narus/Kakuma, in order to record the arrivals and departures of households (HHs) on a daily Lafon North basis. The following findings are based on primary data collected over 24 days between 7 and apoeta Town Kapoeta South 6 30 April 2020. In April, 40 of surveyed HHs (110 individuals) were departures from Kapoeta Torom uba 3 town, 8 HHs (33 individuals) were arrivals to Kapoeta town and 6 HHs (9 individuals) were 0 transit. None of the arrivals or departures were cross-border movements, likely due to Torit Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 March-20 April-20 COVID-19 related movement restrictions including the closure of national borders.9 Budi Kenya Therefore, while the PRM findings usually pertain to cross-border movements, this current INBOUND AND OUTBOUND MOVEMENT THROUGH KAPOETA round only presents data from internal movements arriving in or departing from Kapoeta town.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Equatoria)
    AFRIKA FOCUS-Volume 21, Nr. 2, 2008-pp. 53-70 Governance, violence and the struggle for economic regulation in South Sudan: the case of Budi County (Eastern Equatoria) Anne Walraet Department ofThird World Studies, Ghent University, Belgium This article analyses how Budi County in Eastern Equatoria State (South Sudan) was governed dur­ ing the 1990s and up to mid-2007. Because its capital Chukudum was the SPLM/A headquarters almost throughout that period, it provides us with an interesting case from which to explore how the SPLM/A governed during the war and how this impacts on the post-war peace. One obser­ vation is that the war, besides a period of devastation and human suffering, was also a time of economic opportunities and social differentiation. For that reason this article will also explore livestock trade as a new mode of wealth appropriation and the changing nature of cattle raid­ ing, and how this interferes with the struggle for regulatory power and governable "spaces". This means that we comprehend the economy as a political terrain. At the same time we leave room for sociological perspectives, to complement the more restricted "competition for resources and gains" approach to conflict and violence. The article is written in three sections. In the first section we briefly clarify why in 1999 there was an uprising in Budi County against SPLM/ A rule and why it engendered massive local support. In the second section we examine one of the most destructive manifestations ofviolence that affect Budi county: cattle raiding. We look at it from a perspective that has been under-researched in the field: that of trans-border trade.
    [Show full text]
  • USG Humanitarian Assistance to South Sudan
    USG HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO SOUTH SUDAN CRISIS Last Updated 1/14/20 SOUTH SUDAN-WIDE ARC AAH/USA UNICEF DRC WFP Concern UNICEF SUDAN Food for the Hungry ACTED World Vision DRC VSF/G ~811,500 IMA World Health FAO FAO IOM WRI IMC IMMAP UNICEF IRC WFP IOM IOM* WFP Medair AHA Renk Medair NRC ICRC Mercy Corps Internews Relief International OCHA UNHAS Nonviolent Peaceforce IRC VSF/G SCF UNHCR Samaritan’s Purse World Vision Paloich WFP Kaka ACTED ESTIMATED FOOD Concern Pariang IMC SECURITY LEVELS Medair Abyei Area UPPER ~9,300 Kodok JRS THROUGH JANUARY 2020 Samaritan’s Purse Abyei Area* NILE Tonga Malakal UNMISS None or Minimal LWF UNICEF NNORTHERNORTHERN Mayom Bentiu base: 26,400 Dara Rom Stressed Turalei Bentiu UNMISS Malakal MENTOR Initiative BAHRBAHR ELEL base: 117,800 ~180,500 Crisis Aweil Aweng UNITY Relief International GGHAZALHAZAL Nasir Emergency ~247,300 Raja ~23,400 Gogrial Lankien SCF Koch Leer Catastrophe/Famine WWARRAPARRAP Waat Kuajok Warrap Ayod Source: FEWS NET, January 2020 Mayendit Wau UNMISS ETHIOPIA Rubkuey Akobo ALIMA WWESTERNESTERN base: 14,200 ~126,200 ~334,000 BBAHRAHR EELL Wau JJONGLEIONGLEI UNMISS IDP site IOM Tonj LAKES GGHAZALHAZAL ~184,800 Pochalla DRC UNICEF ~160,400 ~160,100 # IDPs by State Likuangole Food for the Hungry Rumbek Yirol Pibor IMA World Health Refugees C AR WFP Werkok Gumuruk # Bor UNMISS Nonviolent Peaceforce ~2,600 Other Displaced base: 1,900 Bor Tearfund # Persons Tambura UNICEF WWESTERNESTERN Terekeka PROGRAM KEY Mundri EEQUATORIAQUATORIA EEASTERNASTERN VSF/G USAID/OFDA USAID/FFP State/PRM
    [Show full text]
  • Making a Life and a Living in the Sudan-Kenyan Border Area: the Rise of a Thriving Cross-Border Trade Network
    16 Making a life and a living in the Sudan-Kenyan border area: the rise of a thriving cross-border trade network. Anne Walraet Abstract: This paper documents the making of a life and a living in situations of protracted conflict, displacement and mobility, while simultaneously shedding light on state making and the exercise of power from a borderland perspective. It more in particular zooms in on the Sudan-Kenyan border area where throughout the war until today IDPs, refugees, migrants and military meet. The paper in particular explores the nature, role and effectiveness of the social networks of these non-indigenous residents in building a livelihood within urban perimeters and investigates the reasons behind the differential success of one particular cross-border business network. The paper draws on information and insights accumulated during down-to-earth and multi-sited fieldwork between 2006 and 2011. Please do not distribute or quote … this is just an unfinished first draft. Introduction This paper follows a renewed attention for borders and border zones as key sites of displacement, struggle and transformation.1 It more in particular zooms in on the Sudan-Kenyan borderland that for many years has been at once a frontline in the war between the GoS and the SPLA and a location providing islands of security: safe havens for military and refugee camps for civilians. It sheds light on displacement economies in general and from a actor specific perspective, while equally directing attention to emerging patterns of power and accumulation. Its specific entry point is that of the livelihoods of the new residents of Kapoeta and Narus, two towns in Eastern Equatoria state nearby the Kenyan border.
    [Show full text]