South Sudan_IPC May 2014_Projected_Situation

ACUTE FOOD INSECURITY SITUATION OVERVIEW
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN
Created On: 30/04/2014
PROJECTED
Va l i d F r o m : 0 1 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 4 To 3 0 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 4
Key outcomes for the worst affected area
Summary of the causes, Context and key Issues;
A number of counties of Unity, Uper Nile and Jonglei States
Overall causes and key issues are;
1) Disruption of Market Functions
2) Civil Insecurity
3) Population Displacement
4) Human and Animal Diseases
5) Disruption of Livelihoods and Loss of Assets
6) Cattle Rustling
7) Limited Humanitarian Access
8) Onset of Lean Season
Food Consumption: Significant Food Consumption Gaps in the Lean Season.
Livelihood Change: A Significant propotion of the population will continue to use Crisis coping strageties.
Nutrition: Trend analysis of the nutrition data, projected the three states will be in phase 4 (Emergency).
Mortality: No data available
KEY FOR THE MAP
Acute Food Insecurity phase
1
Manyo
Minimial Acute Food insecurity
2
Renk
Stressed
Areas with inadequate data
Crisis
Not Analized Area
4
Emergency
State Boundary
5
Famine
3
Phase could likely be at least
1 phase worse without
the effects of
Humanitarian Assistance
Melut
Abyei
Western
Bahr-El-Ghazel
Raga
Abiemnhom
Aweil
North
Aweil
East
Aweil
West
Northern
Bahr-El-Ghazel
Aweil
Centre
Twic
Mayom
#
0
Aweil
South
Gogrial
West
Malakal
Panyikang
Unity
Rubkona
Guit
Fangak
Warrap
Gogrial
East
Koch
Yirol
East
Rumbek
East
Nagero
MAP SCALE: 1:3,921,564
Disclaimer: Names on this map doesnot imply acceptance by Republic of South Sudan Government.
It is only used for planning purposes by Food Seurity partners.
Pibor
Terekeka
Ibba
Maridi
Mundri
West
Mundri
East
Kapoeta
North
Lafon/Lopa
Central
Equatoria
Eastern
Equatoria
Juba
Yei
Torit
Lainya
Morobo
Acceptable
Medium
Analysis Confidence Levels
High
Areas has reached phase 3, 4 or 5
for more than 3 consecutive Years
Pochalla
#
0
Nzara
Kenya
Jonglei
Awerial
Western
Equtoria
Yambio
Twic
East
Bor
South
Mvolo
County Boundary
Akobo
Uror
Yirol
West
Wulu
Ezo
Uganda
Rumbek
Center
Main Town
National Analysis partners & organizations
Duk
Panyijar
Lakes
Tonj
South
Tambura
DRC
#
*
Maiwut
Ulang
Tonj
East
Libya
CAR
Longochuk
Ayod
Cueibet
Ethiopia
_ _
_ _ _
Mayendit Leer
Jur
River
Eritrea
Baliet
Nyirol
Tonj
North
Wau
Sudan
_
Cannal/Piegi
!
.
IDPS
KEY FOR CALLOUT BOXES
Maban
Nasir
Rumbek
North
Chad
Upper
Nile
Fashoda
Pariang
#
0
Kajo
Keji
Budi
Ikotos
Magwi
Kapoeta
East
®
Kapoeta
South
Data Source: National Livelhood Analysis Forum
Date: 24th to 30th April 2014
Venue:Yei Central Equatoria State
Contact Person:
Alex Tiangwa wani at FSTS/NBS Juba Office
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +211-955-070342
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)
Key Findings and Issues (Briefly discuss key findings)
Overall, about 3.9 million people (34% of the total population) are projected to be in crisis or emergency food insecurity levels during June through August 2014. This is
approximately a 10% increase compared to the population under the current levels (May 2014). The three most affected States of Jonglei, Upper Nile and Unity will continue
accounting for about 56% of the total population in crisis and emergency phases (over 2.2 million people). The other 44% (about 1.8 million people) are contributed by the
other seven (7) states as follows: Northern Bahr el Ghazal (13%), Lakes (9%), Warrap (6%), Eastern Equatoria (5%), Western Bahr el Ghazal (4%), Central Equatoria (4%) and
Western Equatoria (3%).
During the period of June to August 2014, the food insecurity situation is expected to further deteriorate; particularly for the three (3) most affected states. However, increases
in milk, wild foods and fish during June through August are expected to sustain and hence trap affected populations in the emergency phase. This will be further supplemented
by the onset of green harvests of maize, sorghum, pumpkins and vegetables during August, even with reduced cultivation. Similarly, the latest informal reports indicate that
there is significant security-related population movements (described as migration); particularly from central Jonglei and eastern Upper Nile (Nasir and Ulang) into Ethiopia,
where the security situation is more stable. Another possibility of the population movements is that it is more difficult to move when the rainy season starts in June.
A number of Counties in Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile that are currently in emergency phase will continue being areas of concern. Based on the percentages of HHs in
emergency (phase 4), the following counties will need to be monitored more carefully: Uror, Nyirol and Ayod counties in Jonglei and Panyijar, Leer and Mayendit Counties in
Unity State. Geographically, many of these counties are located in the interior of their respective states and potentially suffer from serious access constraints and hence
restricted population movements.
Experience has shown that the combination of conflict and drought is more likely to cause a famine in South Sudan. Therefore, if the current rainfall expectation continues as
predicted (normal to above normal), the chances of famine occurring will be reduced even further. Consequently, the SS IPC TWG will be diligently monitoring the rainfall
performance for the next few months. Although no Counties/areas are expected to slip into phase 5 (famine) during the projected period, the TWG will also be keenly
monitoring the food security situation of the most vulnerable HHs in the most affected areas; especially Counties where more than 30% of its population was in phase 4 in
May 2014. Similarly, without sustained humanitarian assistance, IDPs are more likely (than any other group) to slip into a worse phase.
Methods & Key Issues
(Write a brief description of the IPC Methods and challenges encountered during analyses )
The units of analysis were counties and livelihoods zones. The analysis was done in each State by groups of about 6 persons. Each State was reviewed by a panel of technocrats
and the information was then presented to and validated by the group in its entirety. A group consensus was reached through convergence of evidence and IPC acute food
insecurity reference tables for area and household and IPC analytical frame work were used in providing reference outcomes and general response objectives to five IPC phases
of acute food insecurity. The State IPC Focal person’s information, the Food Security and Livelihoods Cluster vulnerability data, the WFP FSMS round 12 results and EFSAs in the
greater Upper Nile, UNOCHA and FEWSNET reports were used in the analysis. As expected, many challenges were encountered during the analysis phase, some of which
included; lack of data (especially nutrition & mortality), untrained new State IPC focal persons, and poor attendance by INGOs probably due to changes in the schedule of the
workshop.
Processes, Institutions and Ownership
(Discuss the process for IPC meta-analyses, including Technical Working Group composition and procedures, institutions involved, and ownership of findings)
The analysis process was chaired by the coordinator of the livelihoods analysis forum from the National Bureau of Statistics and guided by the IPC Global and Regional Technical
Advisors and Food Security Analysts from various organizations. There was a significant number of stakeholders from Government institutions, UN agencies and NGOs. The core
members of the TWG from the UN agencies and NGOs were part of the exercise. The following institutions participated in the analysis: National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry, Cooperatives and Rural Development, Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries, Ministry of Health, Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, Ministry of
Commerce, Trade and Industry, UNOCHA, UNICEF, Save the Children International, FAO, WFP and FEWSNET. The Government of the Republic of South Sudan maintains
ownership of the process and holds the authority for sharing and disseminating the product. All the stakeholders mentioned above are responsible for the analysis and are in
full agreement with the results of the analysis.
analysis.
Food Security Seasonal Calendar and Monitoring Implications
(Insert seasonal calendar relevant to monitoring food security analyses in the coming year)
Recommendations for Next Steps
(Discuss expected and recommended next steps focusing on analytical activities, monitoring actions and linkage to action)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Urgently ensure that nutrition, mortality and morbidity data needed for the IPC are being consistently collected; particularly for Counties of major concern.
Urgently establish a standard procedure for calculating food insecure population using consistent and comparable data across South Sudan.
Urgently update the FSL Cluster Assessment Strategy and inter-agency implementation to closely monitor the Counties of major concern – mainly through EFSAs.
Urgently engage with and raise awareness among key government decision-makers; Min of Agric, Food Security Council (FSC) and NBS/FSTS…alignments needed.
Ensure that our EFSA, FSMS, CFSAM and other assessment/analysis tools and exercises are better timed and aligned with indicators in the IPC Reference Tables.
Improve and further guide the decentralized State IPC analysis process – to capture local knowledge on the dynamics of acute food insecurity and improve data
collection at both County and Payam levels. Ensure State analysts are trained in IPC analysis; particularly IPC Level I Training.
Standardize and harmonize the data collected by different partners. The coordination mechanism should clearly identify and set the timing and geographic areas
for the data collection; particularly at County levels.
Given the fluidity of the food insecurity situation in South Sudan, ensure that the IPC results are reviewed and updated in July 2014; for Counties of concern.
Contact for Further Information
IPC Technical Working Group: [email protected], [email protected],[email protected]
IPC Global Support Unit: www.ipcinfo.org
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)
APPENDIXES
List of Appendixes
1.
2.
Detailed Population Table
Analyses Worksheets Section 1 to 3 for all areas
Detailed Population Table
(Insert a detailed population table merging the population tables of all areas. Level of reporting should be the lowest administrative unit sub-divided by household food security
situation groups when applicable)
Projected Population by State
Minimial 1
Stressed 2
Crisis 3
Emergence 4
Famine 5
Pop in Phase 3 or Higher
States
Total # of People # of People (PP) % of PP # of People (PP) % of PP # of People % of PP # of People (PP) % of PP # of People % of PP # of People (PP) % of PP
WBG
517,216
157,627
30%
217,989
42%
84,597
16%
56,030
11%
0
0%
140,627
27%
NBG
1,344,420
343,541
26%
489,907
36%
317,215
24%
193,715
14%
0
0%
510,929
38%
Warrap
1,268,797
744,851
59%
272,660
21%
247,101
19%
2,929
0.23%
0
0%
250,030
20%
Lakes
1,141,686
448,383
39%
358,101
31%
296,796
26%
43,163
4%
0
0%
339,959
30%
Upper Nile
1,317,002
223,203
17%
436,913
33%
446,740
34%
210,145
16%
0
0%
656,885
50%
Jonglei
1,517,114
222,437
15%
504,014
33%
456,581
30%
331,996
22%
0
0%
790,662
52%
Unity
1,075,051
125,631
12%
187,176
17%
403,528
38%
358,715
33%
0
0%
762,243
71%
CES
1,526,608
969,499
64%
417,323
27%
115,138
8%
24,648
2%
0
0%
139,787
9%
WES
770,568
633,724
82%
24,329
3%
75,002
10%
37,114
5%
0
0%
112,116
1%
EES
1,102,227
441,477
40%
473,271
43%
187,479
17%
0
0%
0
0
187,479
17%
Grand Total
11,580,689
4,310,373
37%
3,381,684
29%
2,630,177
23%
1,258,454
11%
0
0
3,890,717
34%

Download Report