1. BRACE IMPACT EVALUATION: PHASE II BASELINE Findings from Upper Nile and Western Bahr el Ghazal States Juba, 31 October 2013 www.southsudan-braceproject.org

2. W HAT IS... WHAT is BRACE? “Building Resilience through Asset Creation and Enhancement” (BRACE) – 2012 until 2015 Food and cash transfers to households Builds skills, physical assets and knowledge  To strengthen household and community resilience. FFA: ‘Food For Assets’ in 3 states – Northern Bahr el Ghazal & Warrap State (Phase I), & Western Bahr el Ghazal (Phase II) Funded by: Implemented by: Through: Local Partners WHAT is BRACE Impact Evaluation? An Impact Evaluation of BRACE FFA activities using two complementary methodologies: Household Economic Analysis (HEA) methodology  Focus Group Discussions Quasi-experimental methodology  Household interviews  Community discussions Funded by: Implemented by:

3. L IVELIHOOD ZONE – I RONSTONE PLATEAU Ironstone Plateau livelihood zone

4. L IVELIHOOD ZONES – E ASTERN F LOOD P LAINS AND N ILE & S OBAT R IVERS Eastern Flood Plains livelihood zoneNile and Sobat Rivers livelihood zone

5. W EALTH GROUP CHARACTERISTICS – I RONSTONE P LATEAU HEA Wealth Group Characteristics – Ironstone Plateau (Western Bahr el Ghazal State) Wealth Group Proportion of population belonging to Wealth Group Livelihoods expenditure/12 months/SSP Land Area Cultivated Crops Cultivated Livestock/Asset Holding Very Poor 32% 0-110 0.5-1 feddan Maize, sorghum, groundnut, sesame, pumpkin, okra 4-5 hens and 0-1 beehives Poor 25% 111-355 0.5-1.5 feddan Maize, sorghum, groundnut, sesame, pumpkin, okra 0-3 goats, 3-5 hens, 0-2 beehives Middle 28% 356-790 2-2.5 feddan Maize, sorghum, groundnut, sesame, pumpkin, okra, millet, cow pea 2-3 cattle, 3- 4goats, 0-4 sheep, 5-7 hens, 0-4 beehives Better- off 15% 791+ 2-4 feddan Maize, sorghum, groundnut, sesame, pumpkin, okra, millet, cow pea 4-5 cattle, 6-14 goats, 5-9 sheep, 8-12 hens, 0-2 fishing nets, 0-6 beehives 1 feddan = 0.42 hectare

6. W EALTH GROUP CHARACTERISTICS –N ILE & S OBAT R IVERS HEA Wealth Group Characteristics – Nile & Sobat Rivers (Upper Nile State) Wealth Group Proportion of population belonging to Wealth Group Livelihoods expenditure/12 months/SSP Land Area Cultivated Crops Cultivated Livestock/Asset Holding Very Poor 23% 0-120 0.5-1 feddan Maize, sorghum, cowpeas, sesame, pumpkin, okra 1-3 cattle, 1-3 goats, 0-3 sheep, 2-4 hens, 0-1 fishing spear Poor 27% 121-340 1.01-1.5 feddan Maize, sorghum, cowpeas, sesame, pumpkin, okra 3-5 cattle, 3-6 goats, 3-5 sheep, 4-6 hens, 1 fishing spear Middle 37% 341-700 1.51-2.5 feddan Maize, sorghum, cowpeas sesame, pumpkin, okra, tomatoes 5-15 cattle, 6-12 goats, 5-10 sheep, 6- 10 hens, 0.5-1 fishing net, 1-2 fishing spears Better- off 13% 701+ 2.51-4.5 feddan Maize, sorghum, cowpeas, sesame, pumpkin, okra, tomatoes 15-25 cattle, 12-20 goats, 10-15 sheep, 10-18 hens, 1 fishing net, 1-2 fishing spears 1 feddan = 0.42 hectare

7. W EALTH GROUP CHARACTERISTICS – E ASTERN F LOOD P LAINS HEA Wealth Group Characteristics – Eastern Flood Plains (Upper Nile State) Wealth Group Proportion of population belonging to Wealth Group Livelihoods expenditure/12 months/SSP Land Area Cultivated Crops Cultivated Livestock/Asset Holding Very Poor 30% 0-300 1-2 feddan Sorghum, maize, cowpea, pumpkin, okra 0-1 cattle, 4-6 goats, 1-2 sheep, 4-6 hens, 0-1 fishing nets, 1 hook Poor 28% 301-800 2 feddan Sorghum, maize, cowpea, pumpkin, okra 2-6 cattle, 6-10 goats, 2-5 sheep, 6-8 hens, 1-2 fishing nets, 1-3 hooks Middle 25% 801-2700 3-4 feddan Sorghum, maize, cowpea, pumpkin, okra 6-20 cattle, 10-20 goats, 5-15 sheep, 8- 15 hens, 2-4 fishing nets, 2-4 hooks Better-off 17% 2701+ 4-6 feddan Sorghum, maize, cowpeas, pumpkin, okra, groundnuts, tobacco 20-30 cattle, 20-35 goats, 15-25 sheep, 15+ hens, 4-6 fishing nets, 4-6 hooks 1 feddan = 0.42 hectare

8. BRACE HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEWS – BY L IVELIHOOD ZONES

9. L IVELIHOODS EXPENDITURE

10. I NTERVIEW LOCATIONS – BY FSMS COUNTY - LEVEL FOOD INSECURITY RATING

11. F OOD INSECURITY RATING CALCULATION Food Insecurity Rating – developed by WFPs Food Security Monitoring System (FSMS) Food Consumption PoorBorderlineAcceptable Ability to access food Poor Coping Strategies Index High Medium Low Medium Coping Strategies Index High Medium Low Good Coping Strategies Index High Medium Low Food Secure Moderately Food Insecure Severely Food Insecure

12. S AMPLE

13. T HE SAMPLE Sample by household level food insecurity, wealth group and FFA participation/eligibility Sample by Livelihood Zone HOUSEHOLDSVery PoorPoorMiddle/ Better-offTOTAL Food Secure1,4433232622028 Non-FFA41397110620 FFA10302261521408 Moderately Food Insecure884159651108 Non-FFA3152924368 FFA56913041740 Severely Food Insecure928921202 Non-FFA456152 FFA478320150 TOTAL2,419 (72%)571 (17%)348 (10%)3,338 HOUSEHOLDSVery Poor % Poor % Middle/Better-off % TOTAL % Eastern Flood Plains757 81% 120 13% 53 6% 930 28% Nile & Sobat Rivers833 69% 156 13% 219 18% 1208 36% Ironstone Plateau867 70% 296 24% 79 6% 1242 37% TOTAL2,457 73% 572 17% 351 10% 3,380 100%

14. FOOD INSECURITY – STATE, WEALTH, COUNTY AND PRIOR FFA/GFD PARTICIPATION

15. F OOD INSECURITY – BY LIVELIHOOD ZONE FINDINGS Higher proportion of food insecure households in the Eastern Flood Plains LZ (50%) compared to Nile and Sobat Rivers (32%) and Ironstone Plateau (38%) No significant difference in proportion of food insecurity when comparing states – 39% in Western Bahr el Ghazal and 40% in Upper Nile Similar to FSMS data (Round 10, June 2013): 39% of households in Western Bahr el Ghazal and 38% of households in Upper Nile were found to be food insecure. Higher proportion of severely food insecure households in Western Bahr el Ghazal (10%) compared to Upper Nile (3%).

16. F OOD INSECURITY – BY WEALTH GROUP AND LIVELIHOOD ZONE FINDINGS Recall that highest proportion of food insecure households was found in the Eastern Flood Plains livelihood zone in Upper Nile On the Eastern Flood Plains, the Very Poor were much more likely to be food insecure (67%) than Middle/Better-off households (13%) Same in Nile and Sobat River – 34% of Very Poor households were food insecure, compared to 19% of Middle/Better-off Trend reversed in Western Bahr el Ghazal – Very Poor were less likely to be categorised as food insecure (32%) compared to Middle/Better-off (47%).

17. F OOD INSECURITY – BY COUNTY FINDINGS Upper Nile: Longochuk County highest proportion of food insecure households (72%) Western Bahr el Ghazal: Jur River County highest proportion food insecure households (65%)

18. P RIOR FFA/GFD PARTICIPATION – BY LOCATION AND S TATE FINDINGS Baseline data collection included communities selected for BRACE FFA participation (treatment) and those that were not selected (control) in Upper Nile – and selection from all bomas in Western Bahr el Ghazal (all eligible for FFA selection) Some households had already participated in FFA, either through BRACE in Upper Nile or through previous interventions in Western Bahr el Ghazal Based on baseline data households were split into four groups – those that had 1) already participated in FFA; 2) switched from FFA to GFD; 3) participated in GFD; 4) not participated in any intervention Aim of the impact evaluation is to assess difference in change of food security and resilience status of households, depending on these four ‘starting points.’ FFA participation was actually higher in Western Bahr el Ghazal where 23% of households had participated in FFA during the 12 months preceding the survey compared to 10% in Upper Nile. In Upper Nile, 39% of households at FFA locations had participated in FFA and the vast majority of households at non-FFA locations (96%) had not participated in any intervention at all - just 4% had participated in GFD.

19. P RIOR FFA/GFD PARTICIPATION – BY WEALTH GROUP, LOCATION AND STATE FINDINGS In Upper Nile: Very Poor households were the least likely to have participated in any intervention – 42% had taken part compared to 55% of Poor and 54% of Middle/better-off households. Trend reversed in Western Bahr el Ghazal: Poorer households were more likely to have participated in FFA and/or GFD – 37% of Very Poor households had participated compared to 30% of Middle/better-off households. Future rounds of surveying will aim to establish whether FFA participation is associated with an increase in wealth or whether wealthier households are more likely to participate in FFA.

20. F OOD INSECURITY – PRIOR FFA/GFD PARTICIPATION FINDINGS In Western Bahr el Ghazal: more food insecure households amongst those that had not yet participated in FFA (39%) compared to those that had (35%). But smaller proportion were severely food insecure (8%) compared to FFA households (14%). In Upper Nile: no difference in food security comparing FFA and Non-FFA locations in same LZ Further rounds of surveying will attempt to identify whether the variation is attributable to FFA participation, or whether other factors drive this difference.

21. DEMOGRAPHICS

22. D EMOGRAPHICS – AGE AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE FINDINGS Majority of household members aged less than 15 years (54%) – higher than the proportion reported by the latest census (44.4%). Almost a quarter (24%) of household members were aged less than 5 – also higher than the 2008 census (16%). Average age-dependency ratio was the same for households at FFA and Non-FFA locations in Upper Nile (1.9) – was higher in Western Bahr el Ghazal (2.2). Average household size higher in Upper Nile (8.3) where 31% of households contained 10 or more members, compared to Western Bahr el Ghazal (6.9), where 17% of households had 10 or more members. In Upper Nile: more than a third (37%) of households in Nile and Sobat Rivers contained 10 or more members, compared to 22% in the Eastern Flood Plains.

23. D EMOGRAPHICS – FOOD INSECURITY BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND LIVELIHOOD ZONE FINDINGS Larger households were more likely to be food secure, across all livelihood zones. Hence 66% of households with 10 or members in Eastern Flood Plains; 77% in Nile and Sobat Rivers; and 78% in Ironstone Plateau livelihood zones were found to be food secure. The corresponding figure amongst households with 1-6 members was just 46% on the Eastern Flood Plains; 57% in Nile and Sobat Rivers; and 56% on the Ironstone Plateau.

24. D EMOGRAPHICS – FOOD INSECURITY BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE, WEALTH GROUP AND LIVELIHOOD ZONE FINDINGS This effect remained when controlling for wealth amongst poorer households – larger households were more likely to be food secure when compared to smaller households in the same Poor or Very Poor wealth group

25. D EMOGRAPHICS – WEALTH GROUP BY GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND LIVELIHOOD ZONE FINDINGS Households identifying themselves as female headed were more likely to be poorer – 77% of female headed households were Very Poor (77%) compared to 69% of male headed households This effect remained when controlling for livelihood zone – the most marked difference is on the Ironstone Plateau, where 76% of female headed households were Very Poor, compared to 63% of male headed households. Households identifying themselves as female headed were actually more likely to be food secure (62%) compared to male headed households (60%). This trend remained when comparing households within the same livelihood zones.

26. D EMOGRAPHICS – FOOD INSECURITY BY RESIDENCE STATUS OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND STATE FINDINGS Overall, IDP households were most likely to be food insecure (60%), followed by hosts (49%), migrants (35%) and returnees (32%). This effect remained when comparing households in Western Bahr el Ghazal – while 63% of IDP households were found to be food insecure in Western Bahr el Ghazal, the corresponding proportion amongst Host households was 36%, followed by Migrants (32%) and Returnees (25%). The effect did not remain when comparing households in Upper Nile.

27. D EMOGRAPHICS – F OOD INSECURITY BY TRIBAL AFFILIATION AND S TATE FINDINGS Food security amongst the six tribes that the majority of households were affiliated to. In Upper Nile, Shilluk households were most likely to be food insecure (45%) followed by Nuer Gajiok (42%), other tribes (31%) and Dinka Dhongjol 23%). In Western Bahr el Ghazal, Luo (Jur) households were found most likely to be food secure (58%) followed by Dinka Rek (45%), Balanda (24%) and other tribes (24%).

28. LINEAR REGRESSION – FOOD INSECURITY

29. F OOD INSECURITY – LINEAR REGRESSION THE MODEL To explore the relative effect of demographic factors on household level food security, a linear regression model was fitted for Food Insecurity Rating as a response variable where: Severely Food Insecure = 0 Moderately Food Insecure = 1 Food Secure = 2 Variables that were indicated as statistically insignificant were removed stepwise from the model until all variables were statistically significant at 5% level (p<0.05). VARIABLES Response variable: Food insecurity Explanatory variables: Wealth group High food insecurity counties Prior FFA/GFD participation Household size Proportion of members aged less than 15 Kinship ties Female household headship Residency status Tribal affiliation

30. F OOD I NSECURITY – LINEAR REGRESSION Linear regression model – Food insecurity Coefficients a ModelUnstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients tSig.95.0% Confidence Interval for B BStd. ErrorBetaLower BoundUpper Bound 1 (Constant) 1.359.04033.774.0001.2801.438 Middle Better-off.115.032.0583.645.000.053.177 County Jur River -.699.033-.386-20.854.000-.764-.633 County Longochuk -.785.075-.168-10.512.000-.932-.639 Tot_HH.018.002.1257.490.000.014.023 Perc_U_15.002.000.0684.269.000.001.003 @1_8_Rel_HHs.042.007.1156.431.000.029.055 HHH ResStatus - IDP -.253.055-.074-4.579.000-.361-.145 HHH ResStatus - Returnee.100.047.0342.118.034.007.192 HHH Tribe - Nuer Gajiok -.317.028-.198-11.315.000-.372-.262 HHH Tribe - Shilluk -.192.024-.142-8.082.000-.238-.145 a. Dependent Variable: Food Security Rating

31. F OOD INSECURITY – LINEAR REGRESSION Linear regression model - Findings Belonging to the Middle/better-off wealth group was associated with a 11.5% increase in food security bracket compared to the poorer wealth groups. Living in Longochuk County was associated with a 78.5% decrease and in Jur River County with a 69.9% decrease in food security bracket, compared to other counties Each additional household member was associated with a 1.8% increase in food security bracket. Each additional five households that a household was related to by kinship were associated with a 4.2% increase in food security bracket. Having an IDP household head was associated with a 25.3% decrease in food security bracket and a returnee household head with a 10% increase, compared to other households. Nuer Gajiok tribal affiliation was associated with a 31.7% decrease in food security bracket and Shilluk tribal affiliation with a 19.2% decrease compared to other tribes. o Variation when comparing the Poor and Very Poor wealth groups; FFA, GFD and no participation; female and male headship; migrant and host residency status; Dinka Rek, Dinka Dhongjol, Balanda and Luo and other tribal affiliations, was not statistically significant once controlling for the variables above.

32. T HANK YOU ! Thank you! The full dry season baseline report for Western Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile states will be released shortly – here we will explore food insecurity factors in detail, looking at food consumption, food sources, expenditures, income sources, coping strategies and other resilience indicators including health, water and sanitation. All reports, primary and secondary data and mapping for the BRACE project can be found at: www.southsudan-braceproject.orgwww.southsudan-braceproject.org For further information and comments please do not hesitate to get in touch: elisabeth.vikman@acted.org elisabeth.vikman@acted.org