UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE - shelterproject.org -...

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGEi n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h :

UN-HABITATDisaster ManagementProgramme

shelterproject.org

report title

Assessment of livelihood and settlement conditions in Kakuma camp, Kenya; Rumbek Town and South Bor County, south Sudan date published

July 2003

who undertook the work

Jon Fowler [email protected]. Jon is a livelihoods assessor and researcher, and wrote Chapter I.

Pete Manfield [email protected]. Pete is an architect and physical planner and wrote Chapters J & K.

The work was undertaken in collaboration with UN-Habitat Disaster Management Programme (DMP) who part-funded the assessment. shelterproject.org is associated with the University of Cambridge and funded by DFID CHAD of the British Government to undertake the development of interagency guidelines for transitional settlement

acknowledgements

shelterproject.org gratefully acknowledges the assistance, advice and hospitality provided by Chris Hutton and Dan Lewis at UN-Habitat DMP, Kenya.

mailto:[email protected]


2 of 84Thanks also to:

- Debbie Shomberg and the CRS staff in Brong for hosting project staff in south Sudan

- UNHCR for hosting project staff in Kakuma.

A executive summary

This assessment has two aims. The first aim is to inform the development of interagency guidelines for transitional settlement, focussing on exit and handover of refugee camps and the resettlement of displaced persons. The second aim is to make recommendations to UN-Habitat DMP concerning their potential role in the reconstruction of southern Sudan. All recommendations assume that sustainable peace in Sudan is achieved later this year.

The report findings are split into three sections:

A.1 Comparison of settlement and livelihood conditions in Kakuma refugee camp, Rumbek and Bor County (section I)

A.2 Options for the return process and re-settlement of refugees and IDPs in Rumbek Town and South Bor County, south Sudan (section J)

A.3 Options and considerations for exit and handover to the Kenyan Authorities of facilities and resources in Kakuma Refugee Camp (section K)

The key findings and recommendations are summarised below:

A.1 Comparison of settlement and livelihood conditions in Kakuma refugee camp, Rumbek and Bor County

Key observations

When asked about their priorities, refugees in Kakuma were most concerned about security and the level of service provision, particularly education.

The commissioner of South Bor County was particularly aware of the need to make the area ‘attractive’ to refugees and IDPs in order to encourage people to return in the initial stages and then to remain and help rebuild and develop.

The establishment of schools in south Sudan staffed by trained teachers will be a strong pull-factor for displaced persons to return home.

www.shelterproject.org associated with the university of cambridge for research projects info@ shelterproject. org

a7

executive summary

3 of 84 Educated youth are likely to seek further education outside of south

Sudan and the draw of Kenya and Uganda is likely to be strong. Female-headed households in Kakuma with young children are likely to

find the transition to south Sudan difficult, with a primary reliance on health and education services to facilitate their ability to sustain livelihoods.

Those involved in new, cash-generating activities in Kakuma wish to continue these in South Sudan. As two-thirds of these people are originally from areas a day’s walk or more from the nearest town, they are likely to migrate into more populous areas in order to increase the chances of obtaining waged-work or accessing a large customer base.

The role of roads in improving trade, communication and access to services will be key to restoring livelihoods.

A.1.2 Key recommendations

Central to all of the above observations is the ability of local governments to plan and manage their resources. Capacity building in management for local authority departments, such as education and agriculture is important, but establishing resources for multi-sector planning, particularly with regards to the co-ordination of developmental agencies, would also have a significant impact.

Recommendations for UNHCR

The return of teachers from IDP and refugee camps will impact upon the will of others to return home.

Recommendations for UN-Habitat DMP

Given the potential for rapid urban migration, local administrations will need support in their attempts to retain skilled individuals who would provide much-needed human capital for local development. Support to identify skilled points of contact that can receive additional training and/or assistance in training others would be useful.

Opportunities for training as well as opportunities for employment will affect the desire of well-educated youth to remain in south Sudan. Facilitating the expansion of programs by different agencies to include a well-structured (with a recognised qualification) training program would help to prevent ‘brain-drain’.

Undertake capacity building with local administrations in Sudan to coordinate multi-sector agency activity prior to the initiation of a return process.

Undertake Capacity building to support management and record-

keeping for education, health and agriculture departments of local administrations.


4 of 84

Facilitating the pooling of training materials, such as teacher training manuals, vocation skills and IGA manuals produced by agencies operating both inside and outside south Sudan would allow general standards to be set. It would further allow for standardisation of qualifications issued by agencies such as ‘diplomas’, and certificates of course completion, which would assist those seeking employment with no formal qualifications.

A.2 Options for the return process and re-settlement of refugees and IDPs in Rumbek and South Bor County, south Sudan

Whilst the majority of refugees and IDPs have been able to maintain at least limited contact with those in their homelands, not all displaced persons are necessarily in a strong position to make an informed decision about where to settle. For example, access to livelihood support and education are two key factors affecting where people will choose to live, and where there remains considerable uncertainty. It may be that to a greater extent the physical locations of new resources will not be decided until after a significant number of people return. This may mean that many choose to resettle after an initial return, or may choose for a time to continue to move between dispersal stations, the homes of their relatives and friends, new settlement sites and economic centres such as markets or towns until more informed settlement decisions can be made.

If SPLM and the international community are to uphold the right of returnees to autonomously decide where to settle, and subsequent ‘secondary’ movements of returnees are indeed significant, then this raises complex issues concerning how to monitor vulnerables, how to monitor the distribution of aid and how local authorities should select the best sites for infrastructure resources which allow for efficient and equitable distribution of resources. With these points in mind, greater participation will be required from humanitarian actors to assist refugees IDPs and local authorities to select settlement strategies that are sustainable and flexible for later developmental phases.

The key to successful resettlement of returnees will be to anticipate and plan for settlement preferences of IDPs and refugees on a family-by-family basis, and then allow for flexibility in a final settlement choice. This might involve the identification of a series of checks and balances to facilitate and support subsequent settlement movements after initial return. For example, it would be a huge advantage to discuss land tenure and the plan for the process of land allocation at the local level in parallel to the national debate and prior to a return process. This could identify land and other resources that could be used and shared with returnees, it could also indicate local opinion as well as external ‘expert’ opinion concerning the maximum carrying capacities of existing and new settlement sites, and where ‘spare capacity’ may exist. Such a process would allow many potential conflicts concerning resettlement of returnees to be anticipated or even played out before vulnerable groups are exposed to avoidable risk. It would also allow give local authorities and supporting agencies more options and tools to use for negotiation with returnees should secondary movements occur.

Finally, whilst security conditions and access to livelihoods in Sudan will clearly be the dominant factors in determining who returns to Sudan and when, access to education will also be a key determinant. The main finding to come from the Kakuma assessment was


5 of 84the link between education and settlement decisions. Families with children in camp schools are more likely to delay return until such time that the benefit from education resources in Kakuma is maximized or equivalent resources have been made available in Sudan. The timing of transfers and mechanisms for integration, therefore, of refugee teaching staff in southern Sudan will directly impact upon the rate of return. It is not clear whether this is also true for those living in IDP camps in Khartoum and elsewhere in Sudan, but if discussions with those who have been exposed to the benefits of education in refugee camps do reveal a general indicator of values, this may bear significance for countrywide resettlement policy.

A.2.1 Recommendations for settlement support in South Bor County

The county commission had detailed and developed plans for the return and resettlement of refugees and IDPs, which should form the basis for international assistance. It is worth noting that a single policy of resettling returnees with relatives will not be possible for all returnees and is further likely to be opposed by local authorities. Conversely, the development of new sites for resettlement carries a high capital premium.

Three recommendations are made:

- Determine the existing resource allocations and maximum population carrying capacities for each existing settlement in Bor County to compare with displacement caseload estimates in order to give an indication of the scope of need for new settlements. - Undertake a survey to quantify the extent to which the current non-displaced population is planning to move east towards better agricultural and pastoral land, and estimate the likely impact upon livelihood security. - Undertake a joint evaluation with the country commission to determine the suitability of new sites for settlement, particularly as most of the proposed sites for development are in fact old settlement sites from 10-20 years ago. Establishing the availability of water, the extent of agricultural land and the potential for mechanized access for each site would help to determine where resources for resettlement might be focused.

A.2.2 Recommendations for settlement support in Rumbek

Whether or not Rumbek becomes a transitional capital or a substantial logistics base for reconstruction, there is clear evidence that the town council is ill prepared to cope with a continued and sustained increase in rural-to-urban population migration from within the existing community. Further, the town council will be under additional pressures to cope with town planning should Rumbek become a centre for the dispersal and resettlement of returnees to Rumbek County.

Two recommendations are made:

- Tools and training for surveying mapping

A mapping survey would give the town council greater visibility of sectoral need, both in the town and the county, to cope with population growth. This would also have several knock-on benefits, as currently, NGOs are not focussed upon Rumbek as a town rather only as parts of catchment areas based around target populations in the county. Comprehensive themed maps would focus and facilitate multi-sectoral planning in the


6 of 84town and further allow NGOs to better coordinate with local counterparts concerning urban development.

- Capacity-building in land tenure and sectoral coordination

The town council is in the early stages of developing land tenure based upon colonial models. Support in the development of land tenure policy at this early stage is an opportunity for the international community to participate in forming settlement response for the return of refugees and IDPs. Capacity building is also required for the development of multi-sector plans at an urban scale.

A.3 Options and considerations for exit and handover to the Kenyan Authorities of facilities and resources in Kakuma Refugee Camp

A significant reduction in the camp population will also bring expectations that redundant resources will become available for the use of local population, especially once such redundancy becomes visible. There are several physical camp resources that are likely to be in high demand. These are water supply, health facilities, education facilities and the return of camp land to those with previous land rights. Handover will also involve attempting to return the local and regional environment to its original state.

There are widespread expectations among the Turkana population that all existing services will continue to run after the departure of the Sudanese1. Whilst this clearly will not be possible, or even required to meet needs, there is much work to be done concerning the management of local expectations. It would seem sensible to start a forum at the grass roots level in order to meet these issues head on. Using the existing EWG forum to address such issues might prove to be the most straightforward approach.

Whilst there is a need for detailed physical planning to anticipate the manner in which the camp may be ‘consolidated’ as the refugee population reduces to eventual closure, it is worth noting that resources in the camp are sufficiently numerous to cope with even the highest estimates of future local demand. The real issue to be resolved is not purely the handover of physical resources, but the extent to which human capacity is available to manage and sustain the use of such resources, and the allocation of national and local funds to cover maintenance and running costs. Some capacity-building has already begun in Turkana, although GoK has yet to assume a leading role in this process. The danger is that without the involvement and integration with a GOK regional development plan for Turkana, the ability to pre-plan for a handover will be restricted.

1 pers comm. Representative, Jesuit Relief Services, Lodwar.


7 of 84

B contents/structure

A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................2A.1 COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT AND LIVELIHOOD CONDITIONS IN KAKUMA REFUGEE CAMP, RUMBEK AND BOR COUNTY..............................................................................................................2A2 OPTIONS FOR THE RETURN PROCESS AND RE-SETTLEMENT OF REFUGEES AND IDPS IN RUMBEK AND SOUTH BOR COUNTY, SOUTH SUDAN...........................................................................4A3 OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR EXIT AND HANDOVER TO THE KENYAN AUTHORITIES OF FACILITIES AND RESOURCES IN KAKUMA REFUGEE CAMP...................................................................6

B CONTENTS/STRUCTURE........................................................................................................7C TIME AND DATE.......................................................................................................................9D WHO UNDERTOOK THE WORK............................................................................................10F OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................12G METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................13

INTERVIEWS/DISCUSSIONS..............................................................................................................13WORKGROUPS...............................................................................................................................13LITERATURE ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................13OBSERVATION................................................................................................................................13QUESTIONNAIRES...........................................................................................................................13

H STANDARDS AND INDICATORS...........................................................................................14I COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT AND LIVELIHOOD CONDITIONS IN KAKUMA REFUGEE CAMP, RUMBEK AND BOR COUNTY........................................................................15

I.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................15I.2 USING A LIVELIHOODS APPROACH........................................................................................15I.3 COMPARISON OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CAPITAL.................................................................16I.4 COMPARISON OF HUMAN CAPITAL........................................................................................19I.5 COMPARISON OF NATURAL CAPITAL.....................................................................................26I.6 COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL CAPITAL.....................................................................................29I.7 COMPARISON OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL....................................................................................32I.8 CONCLUSIONS ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT CAPITAL ASSET LEVELS ON THE RETURN PROCESS AND SETTLEMENT IN SOUTH SUDAN..................................................................................33

J OPTIONS FOR THE RETURN PROCESS AND RE-SETTLEMENT OF REFUGEES AND IDPS IN RUMBEK AND SOUTH BOR COUNTY, SOUTH SUDAN...............................................37

J.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................37J.2 BACKGROUND AND ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................................37J.3 WHEN AND HOW WILL REFUGEES AND IDPS RETURN?.........................................................37J.4 THREE SCENARIOS FOR THE RETURN OF REFUGEES.............................................................39J.5 OPTIONS FOR THE COMPONENT PARTS OF A PRE-DEPARTURE ‘PACKAGE’ IN THE EVENT OF AN HCR-LED REPATRIATION PROGRAMME FROM KAKUMA TO SOUTH SUDAN.........................................44J.6 OPTIONS FOR PHYSICAL RESETTLEMENT IN SOUTH SUDAN..................................................45


b7

contents/structure

8 of 84K OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR EXIT AND HANDOVER TO THE KENYAN AUTHORITIES OF FACILITIES AND RESOURCES IN KAKUMA REFUGEE CAMP..................62

K.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................63K.2 METHOD............................................................................................................................63K.3 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................63K.4 ASSUMPTIONS....................................................................................................................64K.5 HANDOVER.........................................................................................................................64K.6 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................67

L RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................69M ANNEXES.............................................................................................................................................. 71M.1 POPULATION FIGURES..................................................................................................................71M.2 ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................73M.3 DIARY/ITINERY................................................................................................................................ 74M.4 PERSONS MET OR CONTACTED BY TELEPHONE OR EMAIL....................................................76M.5 T.O.R.S............................................................................................................................................. 79

PART 1 – KAKUMA, NORTHERN KENYA..........................................................................................................79PART 2 RUMBEK, SOUTH SUDAN..............................................................................................................80PART 3 ANYIDI, BOR COUNTY, SOUTH SUDAN..........................................................................................81PART 4 LABONE, SOUTH SUDAN...............................................................................................................81PART X GENERAL................................................................................................................................ 82

M.6 CIRCULATION LIST.........................................................................................................................83M.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................... 84

Figures and tablesFigure 1 Children in primary education in south Sudan.................................................................................20Figure 2 Trained and untrained teachers in south Sudan..............................................................................21Figure 3 Cash Earning Activities in Kakuma (QDLS).....................................................................................22Figure 4 Types of skills possessed in Kakuma (QDLS).................................................................................23Figure 5 Businesses supported by Don Bosco..............................................................................................24Figure 6 Kitchen garden allocation in Kakuma..............................................................................................27Table 1 Socio economic groups of the Dinka and Jur Bel – 2000/2001.........................................................28Figure 7 Percent of population owning household items...............................................................................29Table 2 Socio economic groups of the Dinka and Jur Bel – 2000/2001.........................................................31Table 3 Summary of main issues..................................................................................................................33Figure 9 Administrative boundaries of Bor County........................................................................................45Figure 10 Existing settlement in Bor County..................................................................................................46Figure 11 Swamplands in Bor County...........................................................................................................47Figure 12 Expansion of areas prone to flooding to the east...........................................................................48Figure 13 Desired dry lands to the east.........................................................................................................49Figure 14 Settlement Strategy A – Resettlement integrated within existing settlement.................................50Figure 15 Settlement Strategy B – Resettlement 60 KM to the East of existing settlement...........................51Figure 16 Settlement Strategy C – Resettlement 20 KM to the East of existing settlement...........................53Figure 17 Existing water points in Rumbek Town..........................................................................................56Figure 18 The administrative boundary of the town extends in a six-mile radius...........................................56Figure 19 The grey areas indicate existing urbanisation in the town, which has occurred adjacent to the

roads...................................................................................................................................................... 57Figure 20 The coloured blocks indicate some of the key zones in the town..................................................57Figure 21 Potential site for refugee reception/dispersal centre......................................................................58Figure 22 Expanding areas of Rumbek.........................................................................................................59Figure m1 Population of Kakuma by gender, age and ethnic origin – total = 82,200......................................71Figure m2 Population of Rumbek County by Payam, 2000/2002...................................................................72Figure m3 Population of South Bor, 1999.......................................................................................................72


9 of 84

C time and date

The mission was undertaken over a five week period from Sunday 8 th June to Friday 11th

July 2003, with preliminary research undertaken in late May.

The mission involved assessment in three locations with time spent in Nairobi and Lokichoggio talking to various agency representatives:

Kakuma, Kenya: 12th – 19th JuneRumbek, Rumbek County, south Sudan: 21st – 27th JuneAnyidi, Bor County, south Sudan: 27th – 1st July

A full mission itinery is available in Appendix M.6.


c7

time and date

10 of 84

D who undertook the work

The work was undertaken by two consultants, Pete Manfield and Jon Fowler, who are members of the shelterproject.org group, in partnership with UN-Habitat DMP.

Pete Manfield, is a physical planner and shelter specialist. Jon Fowler is a livelihoods researcher. The Martin Centre University of Cambridge 6 Chaucer Road. Cambridge CB2 2EB UK

Email address of Pete Manfield [email protected] Email address of Jon Fowler [email protected] URL of shelterproject.org web site www.shelterproject.org Landline +44.1223. 33 17 16


d7

who undertookthe work

http://www.shelterproject.org/



11 of 84

E source: institution/person

The consultants worked in partnership with UN-Habitat DMP. During their work they met with a number of representatives of UN organisations, NGOs, community representatives and groups, local administrations and representatives of the SPLM. A full list is presented in annex M.4.

The following methods were used: interviews/discussions, workgroups involving scenario planning, literature analysis, observation and questionnaires. A full description of each of these methods can be found in section G.

UN-Habitat made a number of documents available. The work was based primarily on the following:

UN-Habitat (2002) Re-integration and recovery of displaced persons in Sudan: A report of the Inter-agency Mission, 1-17 November 2002

UN-Habitat (2000) Integrated Regional Intervention Framework for Human Settlements Rehabilitation and Institutional Capacity Building in south Sudan – Report of the preliminary assessment mission, 17-21 September 2000

SCF (1998) The Southern Sudan Vulnerability Study, The Save the Children Fund (UK) south Sudan Programme, Kenya.

SCF (2000) An introduction to the Food Economy Research in Southern Sudan 1994-2000


e7

source: institution/person

12 of 84

F objectives

The objectives of this study were threefold:

1) To compare settlement and livelihood conditions in Kakuma refugee camp, Rumbek and Bor County (Section1)

2) To consider options for the return process and re-settlement of refugees and IDPs in south Sudan (Section 2)

3) To investigate options and considerations for exit and handover of Kakuma Refugee Camp to the Kenyan Authorities (Section 3)

This was to inform the development of the following:

i) a case study for a section on the handover of resources and issues surrounding population expansion and internal migration both during and after the return process for the shelterproject inter-agency guidelines for the transitional settlement of displaced populations

ii) adding greater resolution to the link between displaced and non-displaced livelihoods and transitional settlement policy

iii) to scope opportunities for potential involvement of UN-Habitat DM in a post-peace Sudan


f7

objectives

13 of 84

G methodology

The data and information used in this report was gathered in the following ways:

Interviews/discussionsThis report is primarily based on interviews conducted throughout the mission. All interviews were semi-structured with some key questions requiring a response. Flexibility was allowed for following other avenues that arose. A full list of interviewees can be found in annex L.3.

WorkgroupsIn Rumbek, the opportunity was taken to carry out some more detailed work with members of the town-planning committee. This involved using rough maps to identify, for example, possible areas of return or population expansion.

Literature analysisReports and papers were: gathered from an internet search before leaving the UK; sent by UN-Habitat DMP in advance of the mission; gathered from agencies visited in Nairobi, Kakuma and south Sudan.

ObservationGeneral walking and vehicle surveys were undertaken. These were nearly always accompanied by a NGO or UN staff member, though some independent observation was conducted in Rumbek.

QuestionnairesA ‘quick and dirty’ livelihoods survey (QDLS) was undertaken in Kakuma. While the survey sample was too small to be representative of the population as a whole, the survey gave an indication of the variety of activities undertaken to support livelihoods in the camp, particularly by young, educated males. A brief, two-page survey was drawn up to gather information on four areas. Individuals were asked about themselves and the other members of their household.

The QDLS was to be compared to the Lutheran World Federation Baseline Survey (LWFBS) conducted in 2002 in order to assess how representative the results were. A more detailed description of the method is presented in section i.2.1. Results are summarised and a full analysis is presented in a forthcoming report.

This report follows the common United Nations Structured Humanitarian Assistance Reporting (SHARE) ‘SHARE’ reporting structure defined by Dennis King and Maxx Dilley, UNOCHA, February 2002


g7

methodology

14 of 84

H standards and indicators

Standards and indicators related to current guidelines for transitional settlement, namely:

SPHERE Project. (2000) Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. Oxfam Publishing, Oxford

UNHCR (1999). Handbook for Emergencies. UNHCR. Geneva

shelterproject (2003) Guidelines for the Transitional Settlement of Displaced Populations, shelterproject (first draft)


h7

standards and indicators

15 of 84

I Comparison of settlement and livelihood conditions in Kakuma refugee camp, Rumbek and Bor County

I.1 introduction

Settlement and livelihood conditions of the three different groups affected by the return process (refugees outside of Sudan, IDPs in both north and south Sudan, and the non-displaced within Sudan) will affect the character of support for return and the pattern of settlement in south Sudan assuming a successful peace process.

Many IDPs have been displaced several times and have largely been unable to invest in their livelihoods due to insecurity. Those in refugee camps have had to adapt to livelihood and settlement conditions that are entirely different to activities such as agriculture and pastoralism that are traditionally practiced in south Sudan.

Those that have remained in south Sudan have had to adapt to, inter alia, falling cattle numbers, political insecurity and demographic changes due to men joining the SPLA and other groups, with many losing their lives in the conflict.

A successful peace process will mean another change in livelihoods and settlement patterns, assuming that security can be guaranteed. The purpose of this work was to look at current livelihood and settlement conditions amongst displaced and non-displaced south Sudanese in order to:

i) estimate the likelihood of actual return, ii) identify needs for humanitarian/developmental livelihood assistance iii) inform appropriate settlement planning.

Each of the three groups (and the sub-groups within them) have different needs and different resources. If there is to be an approach to the return-process based on equity, it is essential that all groups are assisted in different ways but without favouring one group over another.

I.2 using a livelihoods approach

In order to compare the settlement and livelihood conditions in the three locations – Kakuma, Rumbek and Bor County – the five types of capital asset will be used. These are explained in the table below.

A livelihoods approach emphasises the available assets as much as the needs of people, and offers an opportunity to identify resources that can be built on in order to maximise the


i7

settlement andlivelihoods

16 of 84effects of development investment. This work looks for ways in which such an approach to be integrated into early phases of ‘humanitarian’ assistance as well as developmental assistance.

capital asset Definitionhuman capital investments in education, health, and the nutrition of individuals.

Health status determines people’s capacity to work, and skill and education determine the returns from their labour

natural capital stocks of environmentally provided assets such as soil, atmosphere, forests, minerals, water and wetlands. In rural communities the critical productive asset for the poor is land; in urban areas it is land for shelter

Physical capital stock of equipment, tools and infrastructure and other productive resources owned by individuals and the community.

Financial capital the financial resources available to people (savings, supplies of credit)

Social capital (inclusive of ‘political capital’)

the rules, norms, obligations, reciprocity, and trust embedded in social relations, social structures, and societies’ institutional arrangements, which enable its members to achieve their individual and community objectives.

I.2.1 Livelihoods surveyA ‘quick and dirty’ livelihoods survey (QDLS) was undertaken in Kakuma. The survey sample was too small to be properly representative of the whole population though the bias was identified and consequently the survey gave a good suggestion of what activities were undertaken to support livelihoods in the camp for a group largely representing young, well-educated males.

A brief, two-page survey was drawn up to gather information on four areas. Individuals were asked about themselves and the other members of their household. The four areas investigated were: personal details; origin in South Sudan; education and skills; ways of contributing to household livelihood.

Three youth leaders were selected by the LWF Youth Officer to interview 20 individuals. While the survey was kept as simple as possible, there was not enough time to go through a demonstration survey with the 3 questioners and consequently some forms were confused or unclear. However, the questioners were able to interview representatives of 60 households between them, amounting to 279 individuals.

The QDLS was to be compared to the Lutherean World Federation Baseline Survey (LWFBS) conducted in 2002 in order to assess how representative the results were. Full results and analysis are available in a forthcoming report.

I.3 comparison of social and political capital

Social and political capital is the rules, norms, obligations, reciprocity, and trust embedded in social relations, social structures, and societies’ institutional arrangements, which enable its members to achieve their individual and community objectives. In the case of return to south Sudan the political and social mechanisms for resolving conflict are of primary consideration since nearly all people consulted placed security as the most important factor in the return process.


17 of 84

A full analysis of social and political capital is not within the scope of this study, however the following observations relevant to settlement issues were noted:

I.3.1 KakumaTraditional Sudanese community structures and social networks have nominally been retained in Kakuma. For example, in the case of shelter provision, World Vision distributes resources through the community who identify the most vulnerable for themselves. The agency’s role is therefore to support those who ‘fall through the net’.

All structures and networks have changed in some ways due to living in the camp. New methods of conflict resolution have been developed with agencies to cope with the unique conditions of Kakuma – mostly through specific ‘peace committees’ and an emphasis on talking through issues with other groups. While most disputes are solved within the community, agencies can act as a broker at higher levels, particularly in the case of relations with the Turkana.

An emphasis on human rights has also changed the focus of the community and how some groups, such as women, view their position in society. Female participation in political life in Kakuma and south Sudan is limited. However, in Kakuma there are voluntary women’s committees in each section of the camp and those that are interested in women’s rights are committees. Crucially there is a physical place of refuge and should a woman’s traditional support networks fail, she can make claims on the agencies for support.

Social and political influence is partly determined by ability to influence agency decisions since they are main resource-provider. Therefore those that can speak English fluently are not only involved in community-agency relations but can also work for an NGO, one of the few opportunities to supplement the ration in the camp.

There have been some very real changes in the cultural values of children, particularly as younger children see some young adults leaving for further education in countries such as Canada and the USA. In stark contrast to boys in south Sudan, many teenage boys are aware of Western culture demonstrated by the prevalence of English football club shirts. Another example is very different attitude to girls that Kakuma teenage boys have compared to their south Sudanese peers - traditionally, young boys are not supposed to casually interact with girls the same age, but in Kakuma this has changed.

I.3.2 Rumbek Traditional social networks continue to exist, although the well-educated youth tend to leave Rumbek reducing Rumbek’s pool of skills to draw on.

The administration in Rumbek is well-developed in the sense of the existence of sectoral posts (e.g. there is a lands officer, a taxation officer, an agricultural officer and so on) and a structure for the town council, but it lacks resources to be effective. Furthermore, there appeared to be a lack of consensus about policy with regard to return and integration of refugees and IDPs.

Resources for the town council partly come through taxation of richer members of the community and imports. However, the taxation officer claimed that the tax collected from imports supported only very small projects and claimed that there was no other form of taxation in Rumbek.


18 of 84

The standard tax rate is 5% for all imported goods. This will include items such as cigarettes and sugar. However, in hard times, the tax will be dropped down to 2% on essential food items such as Sorghum and Maize flour and rice.

In the rainy season, when the level of hunger increases, tax rates (and revenue) fall. This is partly caused by the state of the roads, which prevent deliveries by truck. In the dry season, when traffic is able to access Rumbek more easily, all imports are taxed at 5% and revenue rises. About 60% of tax revenue is collected in the dry season.

In terms of community social capital it was noted that although a women’s groups existed in Rumbek it was largely in name only and had few resources to offer any services or material support.

Although everyone we spoke to said the refugees would be welcome home with open arms, there seemed to be some disagreement over whether returnees should be welcome directly into society or settled in a separate area. This is discussed further in J.

I.3.3 South BorSocial networks operate in a traditional way in South Bor and the political mechanisms operate through chiefs at village and Payam level and through SPLM/local administrative structures.

Although people stated that they would welcome returnees some community leaders suggested that because refugees had been away for so long they wouldn’t know how to cultivate and should be supported by agencies in separate settlements. There was a sense of pride in the fact that locals would know how to cultivate while refugees, whom they conceded had experienced better education, would not.

Furthermore, the possibility of traditional kin relations supporting returnees was largely dismissed. This may have been in order to ensure that villages were not overloaded and facilitate moves to the East through agencies helping to build new settlements. This was in contrast to a number of outsiders interviewed who suggested that returning to a relative who would offer some support, no matter how small, would be the likely strategy for most Sudanese returning.

Like Rumbek, the district commissioner and his council suffer from a lack of resources. However, planning for the return process appeared to be built on consensus and had been thought about for some time due to previous experiences of resettlement programs (see section J.6).


Illustration 1 Rumbek prison

19 of 84

I.4 comparison of human capital

Human capital includes investments in education, health, and the nutrition of individuals. Health status determines people’s capacity to work, and skill and education determine the returns from their labour. Human and capital assets vary considerably between the three locations studied in this report. The key differences are in levels of education and training, explored in greater depth in sections i.4.2 and i.4.3.

I.4.1 population

Population figures for south Sudan are a lot less accurate than for Kakuma. Rumbek Town Council were planning a census as they had no current population figures to work with.

Kakuma has a population of around 82,000 of which just over 70% are Sudanese. Women make up just 41% of the population while the camp is overwhelmingly young – 52% are under 17 and three quarters are under the age of 25.

The population of Rumbek payam has increased over the last few years from around 50,000 to 90,000. Thus, even without a formal peace process, the population is expected to rise as long as security remains good. The population of Rumbek town itself is estimated to be approximately 20,000 and the total population for Rumbek county stands at roughly 300,000.

The population of South Bor is around 95,000 and, in contrast to Kakuma, the majority, around 57%, are female. The South Bor administration stated that this caused particular problems in mobilising labour for community projects such as road building since women largely were unable to give up their familial responsibilities and ‘not suited’ to heavy manual work. These population figures are broken down and presented graphically in annex M.1.

I.4.2 education

EnrolmentThe levels of primary and secondary school education in Kakuma are far higher than Rumbek and Bor. Enrolment rates in Kakuma are around 70% while average enrolment in south Sudan in only 30%. However, the literacy rate in Kakuma is 50%. No figures are available for Bor/Rumbek.

A notable push to increase the number of girls in school has begun. However, a women’s development group in Rumbek complained that adult women had been completely left behind and required basic adult education in order to develop new livelihoods and take part in society in a more active way.

Drop-out rates


Illustration 2 Primary school in South Bor

20 of 84Primary school drop-out rates are very high in south Sudan, with few children completing primary school education and, although improving, there is a large discrepancy between boys and girls as shown in Figure 1.

There is a problem with secondary school drop-out rates in Rumbek. In the first year at Rumbek High school there are 100 children enrolled but only around 40 stay on for the second year, a process that continues over the following two years. This is in contrast to Kakuma where 95% of students continue from Year 2 to Year 3 in secondary school and 75% of those in Year 3 continue to their final year. In both cases the drop-out rates are largely attributed to children continuing their education elsewhere – in Kenya, Uganda or, in the case of children from Rumbek, in Kakuma.

Figure 1 Children in primary education in south Sudan

Source: UNICEF (2002)

Finishing studiesMost children in Kakuma want to finish their education before returning to south Sudan (be this at primary or secondary school level). Those with, say, two years left of secondary school would prefer for schools to remain open in Kakuma in order to complete their studies.

Student expectationsThere is a tension between what was described by one member of agency staff as ‘dreams and reality’. When asked what profession they would like to proceed in, students often prefixed their answer with wanting to return home and provide their services for nation-building. However, their desire to become teachers, doctors, lawyers and politicians will require further education at a level not currently provided in south Sudan.


21 of 84Furthermore, most had an unrealistic idea of where they would practice their ideal profession, with many believing that they would be able to work as a qualified lawyer in their home villages.

Teacher livelihoodsAlthough some teachers in Kakuma complained that pay was low, teachers in both Rumbek and Bor operate mostly as volunteers. In most community schools, there is normally some level of support provided for the teacher by the community themselves, though this is less than pay levels in Kakuma (approximately $20 a month compared to over $50). In Rumbek, the Diocese of Rumbek supports 13 schools (there are a total of 53 schools in Rumbek), paying teachers around $70 a month.

This suggests that displaced teachers are unlikely to be able to support themselves and their families on return unless wages are paid. As teachers are well-educated, there are likely to be other opportunities available for making a living. However, in Bor it was noted that several of the teachers were from Kakuma and were prepared to work as volunteers for the time being.

Teacher trainingTeacher training is an important issue in Rumbek and Bor. Some training is provided in Rumbek county through the Institute of Development, Environment and Agricultural Studies in the form of a four-year course of distance learning. However, there remains an acute shortage of trained teachers, and many of those that are have been absorbed into other areas within the SPLM. Figures for south Sudan as a whole are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Trained and untrained teachers in south Sudan

Source: UNICEF (2002)

It was reported that before any large-scale training programme can be initiated the teaching profession will have to be made financially attractive before people will commit to long-term training activities.

The future of educationThe presence of a large number of untrained teachers, particularly in the larger schools, is likely to cause problems in the return process. The Diocese of Rumbek also has plans to support a secondary school in Rumbek, however it cannot provide funds for all the staff


22 of 84and wishes to support those that are trained. This is likely to a general problem upon return where trained teachers are to be preferred to untrained teachers. The untrained teachers may have been offering their services voluntarily for a number of years and will be reluctant to leave their positions.

USAID is providing $20 million for the Sudan Basic Education Program (SBEP) which will work closely with the SPLM Secretariat of Education (SOE) department. However, this will not cover teacher salaries, which are expected to be provided at a community level. While other agencies will also operate in the field of education, they are more likely to provide school meals, materials or training rather than salaries.

I.4.3 Vocational training, skills and business activities

KakumaSkill levels differed between the three areas, with more skills training offered in Kakuma than elsewhere.

The Quick and Dirty Livelihoods Survey2 (QDLS) carried out in Kakuma revealed that the majority (66.5%) in the camp did not use a vocational skill for earning money, but the remaining third were engaged in the following activities, shown in figure 3:

Figure 3 Cash Earning Activities in Kakuma (QDLS)

Source: Shelterproject (2003)

The LWF Baseline Survey (LWFBS) with a much broader and more accurate sample, puts the figure of those involved in Income Generation Activities (IGA) at just 6%.

2 See the introduction of this section for an explanation of the bias in the QDLS towards an educated elite.


23 of 84This can be compared to the numbers of people that possess skills3. The LWFBS shows that there are a number of people (15%) with skills but without opportunity to be engaged in IGA (6%). The QDLS also demonstrates that more people possess skills than are able to use them for earning cash, with a sizeable 42% saying they possessed a skill compares to the 33% involved in cash-earning activities. Many possessed a number of different skills and the distribution of these skills is shown in figure 4.

It is notable that the majority of these skills are ‘educational’ rather than directly vocational and most suited to employment with NGOs (though opportunities for this work are limited).

Of those engaged in cash-earning activities, around two-thirds lived a day’s walk or more from the nearest town. While it is hard to draw conclusions from this figure, those who wish to continue cash-earning activities upon return to Sudan are perhaps more likely to seek work in more populated areas to increase the chance of finding a job or to access a larger customer base. This may indicate that people may move into towns, have a work-base different to their home-base or at least spend a considerable amount of travelling in order to continue activities undertaken in Kakuma.

Figure 4 Types of skills possessed in Kakuma (QDLS)

Source: Shelterproject (2003)

Don Bosco provides skills training in Kakuma, and there is some anecdotal evidence of those trained in Don Bosco returning to Bor and Rumbek to use their skills. Don Bosco also provides support for groups to run their own businesses. Each group consists of between 4 and people who are given a loan in order to set-up the business. Currently 374 groups have been supported by Don Bosco, with the businesses broken down in figure 5 (the figures are for the whole camp and not just the Sudanese community).

3 “The proportion of people trained in any skills is only 15%. Respondents who are aware of at least one type of training opportunity are 48%. Interest in training in various skills is very low.” (LWF, 2002a, p.19)


24 of 84Overall, the scheme in Kakuma has focussed upon giving people the opportunity to trade goods and the Sudanese get about 80% of the loans in line with camp demography.

Most of those with current business activities would definitely look to continue these upon return to Sudan. A knowledge of how loans work will help them prepare for a return and some regard ‘business’ to be an easier way of making money than working in the fields.

The activities supported by Don Bosco have begun to provide a way of supplementing the ration. Those with shops can generate 3,000 to 4,000 shillings (41-55 USD) per month while the older women who sell small amounts of sugar can generally make around 2,000 to 3,000 shillings (28-41 USD) per month.

Those on their 2nd or 3rd loans are generating around 10-15000 per month and the repayment of loans is usually about 3 to 4 months, thus the project appears to be successful.

Figure 5 Businesses supported by Don Bosco

Source: Don Bosco, Kakuma Discussion with Sudanese tradersA group discussion with South Sudanese businessmen, selected by the South Sudanese community leader, revealed a slightly different picture to the one revealed by the QDLS. As none of the businessmen were supported by Don Bosco they felt that their businesses were extremely fragile and provided little extra resources. They were particularly keen about continuing their businesses in South Sudan and a number had already had similar businesses in South Sudan.


25 of 84

Their main concern that a return to South Sudan would prevent them taking any stock and thus they would be left without any capital. Furthermore, they stated that they would be flexible as to where they would carry out their business in the future.

Of those that were involved in cash-earning activities, only 11 were involved in activities other than farming, fishing and herding cattle before they left Sudan (around 12%) and the majority of these people (7 out of the 11) now were involved in shops or restaurants. This means that for 88% of those earning cash new coping strategies had been developed in the camp (though many may have had little experience of traditional livelihoods in South Sudan if they had been children when they arrived in the camp).

These new coping strategies may or may not be continued upon return to Sudan, but a group discussion with Sudanese traders revealed that all of those currently undertaking cash-earning activities wished to continue these activities in Sudan if they were able to return home.

Rumbek and BorIt is not possible at the moment to have detailed figures on skills in Rumbek or Bor. Traditional activities of herding and agriculture provide the majority of livelihoods, although in Bahr El Ghazal 15% of the normal food economy comes from exchange and 20% in Central Upper Nile (SCF 2000). The poorest livelihood group in Rumbek, the fishermen, sell fish in the market in order to try to build up stocks of livestock.

Many NGOs stated that they had to bring in skilled labour from outside of Rumbek or Bor for example, in construction work. There are, however, some trained teachers in both areas and a number of NGOs train local people in areas of health care, advocacy, animal health and so on. It was noted that most of those local, skilled Sudanese that work for NGOs tend to use their cash wages to buy cattle and many of these skilled workers have been trained outside of south Sudan suggesting that these positions will be dominated by returning Sudanese.

In both Rumbek and Bor there are markets for goods imported from, mostly, Uganda, which includes sugar, clothes, soap and so on. Rumbek’s market has expanded considerably over the last five years and the shopkeepers there are from all over south Sudan. Few, however, are able to make a living from trading alone, - three-quarters of those trading say their primary income comes from agriculture. Some shop keepers may make up to a few thousand dollars per year (these tend to be men as women traders have found themselves pushed away from the best spots) but currently there is no large-scale business.

South Bor has a number of small markets, but nothing to compare to Rumbek. Bor Town is in Government hands, depriving those in Bor of their usual trade with the town however, there is insufficient activity to have created another market centre of a similar scale. Livelihood activities remain largely traditional, although there are some agency projects running or planned to provide basic business training.

Some community representatives stated that returnees would have forgotten or would not know how to farm. They argued that returnees would have to be (re)trained to cultivate. This suggests that apart from small-scale business trading, few other livelihood activities are contemplated in more rural areas.


26 of 84GenderFemale-headed households in Rumbek are also at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchy on very low incomes. Some of them may own or operate tea shops which may generate about 2 USD per day. Guesthouses (such as the Panda Hotel) can make around 1,000 USD per month on a basis of 20% profit. The majority of women, however, work the land and look after the family and probably never see hard cash.

I.4.4 Health and water access

There was not time to gather extensive information on health in the three sites and comparative data on water supply in terms of litres per head per day was not available. However, the following reports note:

KakumaAccess to drinking water is comparatively high, with the majority of the people (99%) obtaining their water from tap stands. The average time for fetching water is 1hr 45mins with a mode of one hour. The average distance travelled by respondents to fetch water is approximately 106 metres (LWF 2002a).

The waiting time at the clinic averages 4.3 hours and the time taken to walk to a health facility is about 30 minutes (LWF 2002a).

Rumbek and BorWhile water is scarce in Kakuma, it is estimated that 60% of the population in south Sudan or depend on rivers, swamps and pools for their water rather than water from boreholes (CRS 2001a). Using water from stagnant pools poses a great health risk.

There are over 30 health facilities in Rumbek County including two hospitals, one in Rumbek town and the other in Billing (OUNRHCS 2003). while in Bor there are 22 Primary Health Care Centres for 216,000. Many centres are barely functioning (CRS 2001a)

In Rumbek County, there are 255 safe water points. Assuming even distribution, this would result in 1,636 persons per water point (OUNRHCS).

In Bor 60% of population depend on rivers, swamps and pools for water and there will be more pressure on the availability of clean water if the swamp spreads (CRS 2001a).

I.5 comparison of natural capital

Natural capital is stocks of environmentally provided assets such as soil, atmosphere, forests, minerals, water and wetlands. In rural communities the critical productive asset for the poor is land; in urban areas it is land for shelter.

I.5.1 KakumaKakuma is situated in a desert and there are few natural resources. Some kitchen gardens exist, but lack of water is the main obstacle to increasing the amount of land used for growing crops and vegetables.

While around half of the total number of households in Kakuma would like to have a kitchen garden, only 1,572 households out of roughly 14,000 have access to the kitchen


27 of 84garden programme (primarily to do with lack of water) as shown in figure 6. Half of those with kitchen gardens have a plot of 2 x 3m and half have a plot twice the size (2 x 6m).

GTZ pointed out that that this activity is primarily undertaken by men. They indicates that because there are so few possible income generating activities in Kakuma that men were more prepared to be involved in cultivation and had more success in gaining access to the program.

In the case of land available for shelter, a 3 x 4m house (for up to 5 people) stands in a 10 x 15m plot. This plot size changed in 2000 from 10 x 10m. Part of the reason was to encourage the use of family, rather than communal, latrines.

Figure 6 Kitchen garden allocation in Kakuma

Source: GTZ, Kakuma

I.5.2 RumbekLand in Rumbek, like Bor, is part of the large flood plains of south Sudan. Land types vary considerably with many different soil types in small geographical areas. During the dry season, herders move to lower land, known as toic, where water can be found. Not only are crops harvested in the summer months, but wild foods are available from November to April and fishing is possible in both drying pools and seasonal rivers.

Most exports to Uganda are primary agricultural products such as maize, sorgum, coffee, honey and timber. Ten to fifteen farmers may group together to hire two 10-15 ton trucks per year, which will take harvest out to Uganda between December and April.

Honey production has been a success (a project supported by CRS). However, current honey exports are only 40 metric tons per year compared to a capacity of 2-300 metric tons. The main restrictions on exporting to Kampala are the poor conditions of the roads


28 of 84and corresponding price of transport as well as difficulty in building relationships with buyers.

Farms in Northern Bar El Ghazal are an average of around 8,000 m2 and most are still farmed in traditional ways i.e. using a manual rather than animal labour. Richer members of the community are able to employ labour (though often for food rather than cash) and therefore manage larger farms.

A rough breakdown of different economic group’s land use is presented below in a table reproduced from a STARBASE report on Rumbek.

Table 1 Socio economic groups of the Dinka and Jur Bel – 2000/2001DINKA Very poor Poor Middle Better offPercentage of HH 5-15% 15-25% 20-30% 40-50%Area cultivated in Feddans

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-6

Expected harvest (grains) kg

80-100 135-155 180-230 380-390

Expect harvest (g/nuts) kg

90 180 270 240

Composition Headmen, ordinary civilians, widows, soldiers, small-time farmers

‘Magicians’, sub-chiefs, SPLM personnel, traders, fishermen

Magician, chiefs, traders.

JUR BEL Very poor Poor Middle Better offPercentage of HH 5-15% 15-20% 25-35% 40-45%Area cultivated in Feddans

1 1-3 3-5 5-10

1 Feddan = 0.42 hectaresSource: WFP 2001/2002 and 2000/2001 Annual Needs Assessment Reports, Rumbek and Cuibet Counties, reproduced in OUNRHCS (2003)

There is some pressure upon the availability of land in Rumbek, particularly around the market area and the strip where NGOs are siting their operations (see section J.6). This creates a difficult situation as land, traditionally at least, in south Sudan is communal and tenure issues, coupled with the effects of unplanned settlement, could lead to disputes. The presence of NGO activity, with the cash they inject in the local community, and increasing trading activity brought about by a rising population cannot necessarily operate without clarity in land ownership. According to the Town Planning Committee, there is a proposal for a leasing price structure.

Cultivation is likely to expand to areas that they have not been in before and rise in importance. Already there are some larger scale farms in the county and some areas that were common grazing land are slowly being turned into farmland. This process is likely to continue in the future.

I.5.3 South BorAlthough there is plenty of land available in South Bor, currently settlements exist in swampy areas and people generally wish to move East. For a full case study of the land issue in South Bor, see section J.6.

The land currently under cultivation is still worked in the traditional way. The swampy character of some of the land means that family plots are restricted by the amount of weeding that has to be done “you weed to the end and turn around and find that you have to start all over again straight away”.


29 of 84

I.6 comparison of physical capital

I.6.1 KakumaLittle time was available for an analysis of levels of physical capital. The information on cash-earning activities suggests that a minority have tools (for bicycle repair, tailoring etc.). Anecdotal evidence from Don Bosco suggested that those not running a business may still have their own tools after undertaking vocational training and those families with kitchen gardens will have agricultural tools. However, the evidence suggests that generally physical capital is low, suggested by Figure 7 from the LWFBS.

Figure 7 Percent of population owning household items

Source: LWF (2002a)

There is no significant ownership of livestock in Kakuma, though, as Figure 7 shows, there is ownership of poultry and other birds.

Livestock replenishment is likely to be crucial to the success of settlement, particularly if non-displaced relatives are poor and cannot assist returnees.

In terms of communal physical capital – infrastructure – those in Kakuma have to travel shorter distances than those in south Sudan to access services. Furthermore, though floods do affect Kakuma refugee camp, they do not have the same long-term isolating effect as they can in south Sudan.

Other communal physical capital includes all the generators, tools, vehicles and so on owned by the agencies operating in Kakuma which, while not directly owned by the refugee community, are related directly to the ability to mobilise and utilise resources.

Shelter


30 of 84Iron sheeting has been introduced as the main roofing material and the unit cost of houses is around $100-130 (depending whether wider program costs are included). While the floor and walls of shelters are nearly always constructed using mud, more than a third of roofs are iron-sheet and just under half use plastic sheeting in some form (LWF 2002a). Thus the characteristics of physical shelter in Kakuma are very different to south Sudan where makuti remains by far the main roofing material.

House-building is also linked to Income Generation Activities (IGA), although this is not the primary focus of the project for reasons of encouraging participation and reducing programme costs. Bricks cost 1 shilling each and 300 bricks can be made by one person in one day. World Vision (in charge of shelter in Kakuma) purchases bricks from brick-makers, although households are expected to provide their own bricks if they can and build the walls themselves (households that are deemed too vulnerable to provide for themselves by the community have their shelter built for them by World Vision).

The distribution of shelter resources is decided by the community – World Vision states how many shelters/repairs it can provide for vulnerable households in a year and then the community decides which households should receive assistance according to their criteria for vulnerability. This allows the community to be in control of the process and reveals the subtlety of vulnerability in the camp, which is connected to the resources of relatives and family and not just the individual.

This mirrors, though not exactly, the communality of land in south Sudan. There are some private acquisitions of shelter materials, but these are mostly for developing shop fronts and so on.

I.6.2 RumbekThere was no way of surveying the levels of physical capital in any detailed way in Rumbek. However, observation and discussions revealed or suggested the following:

The all-weather airstrip is the most advanced individual piece of transport infrastructure.

Roads are poor, but passable nearly all the year round in the town area itself.

There is some ownership of bicycles. CRS has provided some grants for the purchase of second-hand trucks. However, these are few and farmers normally have to join together to hire trucks to take goods to Uganda.

There are some agricultural projects planned by the Agricultural Department of Rumbek Town Council which include the development of agriculture in terms of animal-pulled ploughs.

There is currently no light industry in Rumbek, though the Town Council is aware of a need to set aside land in preparation for potential development.

In terms of productive animal resources, table 2 shows the breakdown of ownership by economic class:

Table 2 Socio economic groups of the Dinka and Jur Bel – 2000/2001DINKA Very poor Poor Middle Better offPercentage of HH 5-15% 15-25% 20-30% 40-50%


31 of 84Cattle per HH 0-10 5-10 10-20 >30Milking cows 0-2 1-2 2-4 >5Sheep/goats per HH 0-5 5-10 10-20 >25Composition Headmen, ordinary

civilians, widows, soldiers, small-time farmers

Magicians, sub-chiefs, SPLM personnel, traders, fishermen

Magician, chiefs, traders.

JUR BEL Very poor Poor Middle Better offPercentage of HH 5-15% 15-20% 25-35% 40-45%Beehives owned 2-10 10-20 20-30 30-60Sheep/goats The Jur community have some livestock of which sheep/goats are the majority (they are

primarily agriculturalists).1 Feddan = 0.42 hectaresSource: WFP 2001/2002 and 2000/2001 Annual Needs Assessment Reports, Rumbek and Cuibet Counties, reproduced in OUNRHCS (2003)

Cattle movement patterns are starting to change, primarily due to availability of resources at fixed points (eg education). There have been some attempts at mobile or outreach programmes particularly for animal vaccinations at cattle camps, but this has not been attempted for health clinics or for schools, thus permanent settlement has continued to rise.

I.6.3 South BorAs with Rumbek, there was no way of surveying the levels of physical capital in any detailed way in South Bor. However, observation and discussions revealed or suggested the following

There was no animal traction and, as far as is known, agricultural equipment is limited to hand tools. There is generally no processing of primary agricultural products and therefore there are few grinding mills etc.

Roads are seasonal and flooding makes some areas impassable by vehicle. Some villages are located on very swampy ground which makes access difficult.

There are very few permanent brick buildings. Those that are visible have mostly been damaged by the conflict. There is a possibility of repairing some of these buildings for new uses (service provision).

Livestock is owned and cattle are herded in the traditional way. Cattle numbers fell considerably during the 1980s and 1990s due to conflict and cattle raiding. Relative stability has meant an increase in livestock over the last few years.

I.7 comparison of financial capital

Financial capital is difficult to quantify in any of the three sites. Though cash is important in south Sudan for trading, cash really continues to exist in the form of cattle.

I.7.1 KakumaKakuma has a cash economy built on the well-developed main market in Kakuma 1. The choice of goods and services available (from mini-cinemas to Nike trainers) is much wider than in Rumbek and virtually non-existent in Bor.


32 of 84The QDLS in Kakuma revealed that around one fifth of the population sampled received some external assistance from a relative. No amounts were given.

The refugees’ familiarity with cash (even if they have little of it) is in stark contrast to those in South Bor where cash is in extremely limited supply and is further turned into cattle as soon as possible.

I.7.2 RumbekRumbek county is largely a cash-poor economy and, despite the existence of the growing market in Rumbek town, cattle remain the main ‘currency’. It was noted that most market traders are primarily farmers.

Rumbek currently trades in four different currencies: Ugandan shillings; Kenyan shillings; US Dollars and Sudanese Pounds. Dinars may occasionally be used. Sudanese pounds are in short supply and fragments of notes are often taped together, the value being determined by the highest number showing.

Although NGOs pay wages in cash, most skilled workers spend their money outside of south Sudan.

CRS offers micro credit schemes for grain storage, grinding mills and shops as well as occasionally providing some grants for second hand trucks and grants for office buildings.

I.7.3 South BorSouth Bor is more cash-poor than Rumbek and cash is quickly converted into cattle. Trading occurs, but this has been restricted during the conflict by Bor Town, the main market, being controlled by GoS.

I.8 Conclusions on the implications of different capital asset levels on the return process and settlement in south Sudan

Aside from a guarantee of security, refugees in Kakuma were most concerned about the level of services, particularly the provision of education. The commissioner of South Bor County was particularly aware of the need to make the area ‘attractive’ to refugees and IDPs in order to encourage people to return in the initial stages and then to remain and help rebuild and develop.

Central to all of the observations below is the ability of local governments to plan and manage their resources. Capacity building for the management of individual departments such as education and agriculture is important, but establishing resources for multi-sector planning, particularly with regards to the co-ordination of developmental agencies, would reap the greatest rewards.


Illustration 3 Kakuma market

33 of 84

A summary of the main issues is presented in table 3:

Table 3 Summary of main issuesIssue IDPs in Labone Refugees in

KakumaNon-displaced in Rumbek town and Bor county

Challenges

Shelter conditions

Bush pole and grass thatch tukuls

Adobe and GI sheet roof houses/ bush pole/adobe walling and plastic sheeting makuti roofing

Bush pole and grass thatch tukuls

Differing shelter conditions and building skills may produce differing expectations for shelter assistance.

livelihoods Reliant on food distributions, some farming, some pastoral activities, limited trading

Reliant on food distributions, no farming, limited market gardens, limited trade and NGO employment

Largely pastoral, small scale agricultural activities

What livelihood assistance will be afforded to those who have no background in agricultural or pastoral activities?

Settlement tradition

Transitory due to poor security

Sedentary, dense market- based camps

Transitory due to pastoral activities

Where is ‘home’? How will security be afforded to those who are transitory for economic reasons?

Education Most have had access to primary education

Most have had access to primary and secondary education

Limited access to primary education

Location of education facilities likely to affect pattern of settlement

Health Limited access to primary health care

Free access to primary health care and hospitals

Very limited access to primary health care

Location of health facilities likely to affect patterns of settlement

Conclusions to differences in capital assets are presented below.

I.8.1 implications of differences in social and political capital for return

securitySecurity is paramount. Security must be guaranteed, and conflict resolution mechanisms in place, for refugees to return with confidence and not to worry that they may have to leave and ‘start from zero’ again.

peace dividendHow much of the US ‘peace dividend’ will filter down to local administrative levels is as yet unknown. Capacity building is necessary to ensure that investment is maximised.

administrationCouncils could operate more effectively if they had more resources, particularly for record-keeping and map-making as well as strengthening multi-sectoral planning mechanisms. This is crucial for a sense of ownership in the planning stage of a return process and also for co-ordinating multi-sector developmental activity.

cultural difference


34 of 84Cultural clashes between young returnees and non-displaced traditional ways of living may cause some problems. Although there were examples of children returning from Kakuma in ones and twos and being reasonably easily integrated, it was felt that a larger population shift of youth into schools in south Sudan would not be so easy.

competition over influenceThere may be some conflicts over political power and influence between those returning and the non-displaced. There are already examples of this at the level of school management. The same is likely to occur in local administration. Furthermore, it is the refugees who are probably more likely to qualify for positions made available by NGOs. This may threaten the principle of equity and threaten social cohesion.

genderRefugee women involved with gender equality programs may find south Sudan less supportive. However, their priorities, particularly if they have young children, are likely to be health and education services. Women’s groups do exist in south Sudan, but the group in Rumbek existed mostly in name only with few tangible resources to offer.

I.8.2 implications of differences in human capital for returnThe higher levels of education and non-traditional skills amongst the displaced population could lead to some of the following scenarios:

a. The displaced provide much needed skills in health and education that improves the human capital of the whole community and assists the reintegration process

b. There are not enough opportunities for those with non-traditional skills to carry on their new activities in their area of origin. Consequently there is internal migration to more densely-populated areas leaving rural areas with lower levels of human capital

c. There are not enough opportunities for those with non-traditional skills to carry on their new activities anywhere in south Sudan and there is no desire to return to traditional livelihoods. Consequently there is a ‘brain-drain’ on south Sudan and movement into Uganda, Kenya and other countries.

d. Current service levels in Kakuma for health are of a better quality than south Sudan. This is likely to mean that, if this information is made available without an organised sensitisation process, refugees may feel reluctant to return

Discussions suggested that choices would be made at an individual level and generalising for groups would be difficult. Scenarios b and c are currently occurring in south Sudan and it may be that although a peace process would bring increased opportunities through the activities of development agencies and the south Sudanese administration through the peace dividend, these opportunities are unlikely to be enough to satisfy everyone.

The QDLS revealed the following conclusions:

Young, educated men are most likely to have found cash-earning activities in the camp and very few had been involved in such activities in south Sudan. Two thirds of such activities were shop-keeping/trading and working for NGOs.


35 of 84South Sudanese businessmen reported in group discussion that they would be flexible as to where they located their businesses and felt that the process of return may mean sacrificing their capital in the form of stock, thus being unable to continue their business in South Sudan.

Those who are involved in new, cash-generating activities in Kakuma wish to continue these in South Sudan. It is suggested that as two-thirds of these people are originally from areas a day’s walk or more from the nearest town, they are likely to migrate into more populous areas in order to increase the chances of obtaining waged-work (particularly with NGOs) or accessing a large customer base.

I.8.3 implications of differences in natural capital for returnresumption of traditional livelihoodsCertain groups within refugees and IDP communities will find it hard to return to traditional livelihoods as many have not been involved in traditional pastoral or agricultural activities since they left south Sudan and will require training.

Returning IDPs and refugees are likely to bring some new agricultural skills with them (those with ‘theory’ training alone are likely to bring new ideas). This is likely to alter the pattern of agricultural activity in south Sudan, particularly if larger plots are placed under cultivation using new methods or new crops.

communal landThe communality of land in south Sudan means that although all crops grown on a plot belong to the family farming the land, the natural capital remains the asset of a community. If there is urban migration, other capital assets will be drawn on more heavily.

Communal land allocation is compromised in economic and administrative centres, such as Rumbek town and oil producing areas. Currently, methods to decide who owns such resources are ambiguous.

In Rumbek county, common grazing land is already being turned into farmland. This process is likely to accelerate in the event of population expansion. Furthermore, fixed-point services are encouraging more permanent settlement based on farming rather than herding.

shelter resources in KakumaThere are as yet unanswered questions as to whether shelter materials in Kakuma will belong to the Sudanese community in the event of camp closure. There may be a need to identify those parts of a shelter that were bought privately.

land allocationThe lack of accurate maps or detailed land registers make it difficult for the Sudanese administration and leadership in Rumbek to cope with the current as well as future pressures on land availability.

I.8.4 implications of differences in physical capital for returnagricultural processingThere is very little agricultural processing in south Sudan, and certainly less in South Bor than in Rumbek. Investment in processing is crucial for creating local economies that can support the development of local services.


36 of 84

infrastructurePhysical infrastructure is poor in south Sudan. Brick buildings are few and far between, although it was suggested that several existed in South Bor that could be repaired.

Investment in roads in south Sudan would provide the biggest boost to communal physical capital. The knock-on effects for communications, service access and trade are potentially huge. However, road-building costs are high and must be weighed up against investment return from other forms of assistance.

Returnees may not be prepared to walk greater distances to access services, preferring to move to populous areas.

I.8.5 implications of differences in financial capital for returncurrencyThe decision on a currency is a political one with wide ramifications for trade. There is some anecdotal evidence of south Sudanese punishing people in Rumbek for not using Sudanese pounds.

development of cash economyWithout a stable cash supply returnees planning to run businesses when they return may find themselves in difficulty. The usefulness of cash remains in competition with cattle and while cash given as part of a return package might appear to be flexible it may not be much of an investment in areas where cash economies are undeveloped.

Those returnees wishing to run businesses and used to trading in cash may have difficulty operating in areas where people have little cash with which to buy goods.

CRS is planning a voucher system for their support for the return of IDPs This offers a way of obtaining goods while avoiding some of the problems of using cash (particularly security). Whether these sort of schemes will be in competition with cash purchase is unclear.


37 of 84

J Options for the return process and re-settlement of refugees and IDPs in Rumbek and South Bor County, south Sudan

J.1 Introduction

A number of stakeholders were consulted about the way in which the return process might be organized. Whilst it is acknowledged that value of speculation is limited, it is the opinion of the authors that there is much to be gained by understanding the views and expectations of those who will be directly involved in a repatriation effort, notably the local county commissions in South Sudan and the refugees themselves. A number of donors and NGOs with longstanding involvement in IDP assistance programmes, as well as members of IGAD and the SPLM leadership were also consulted.

This section discusses a series of issues concerning a potential return process:

several return scenarios, which have been worked up into strategic options for settlement planning.

the options for return packages to be distributed to returnees options for physical resettlement in two case study locations in South

Sudan

J.2 Background and assumptions

The mechanisms for return to southern Sudan will be complex for a number of reasons. The first is that certain groups of people have been displaced for so long that social reintegration will be a long and potentially fraught process and one that is likely to impact directly upon the sustainability of physical planning for resettlement. The second is that the level of infrastructure development is so low in the majority of the war-affected areas that the physical process of return will, without doubt, be a enormous logistics operation. The third reason is that in the information-poor environment of southern Sudan, there are significant risks that decisions made in ‘emergency’ phases during the return process could hamper the delivery of effective longer-term developmental assistance goals. Whilst there will be, and justifiably so, a concerted effort to focus on the needs of returnees, a successful reintegration and resettlement operation will be one that is able to simultaneously cater to the differential needs of the non-displaced.

J.3 When and how will refugees and IDPs return?


j7

return process

38 of 84Whilst it is acknowledged that it will take many years for the IDP return process to be effected in full, it is likely that many IDPs will start to return immediately and spontaneously as soon as security and economic factors are favourable and physical access is guaranteed. Whilst there will undoubtedly be NGOs in certain areas who will assist with, and plan for, an organized return to homelands from IDP camps, it is unlikely that explicit assistance policies will be homogenized across the county. Current thinking from UNCT in Khartoum and many NGOs operational in southern Sudan is that it is better to let IDPs find their own means to return home and provide assistance thereafter4. In fact, mechanized transport may not be preferred in many cases, as IDPs with their cattle and many physical possessions will prefer to move with these items and walk home instead.

This is unlikely to be the case with refugees. Whilst there will always be refugees who choose to spontaneously return independently, refugee return to southern Sudan is likely to be characterized by organized and supported response. UNHCR is keen to point out that it would wish that refugee repatriation occurs ‘under the shadow’ of IDP return. This makes sense in terms of numbers alone. Whilst there are some 500,000 refugees in neighbouring countries, there are some four and a half million IDPs in Sudan. Organised return, however, by its very nature is likely to be more visible and of a higher profile than assisting spontaneous IDP return.

Concerning the mechanisms of return, refugees will almost certainly be escorted by truck back to their homelands from their country of asylum in order to maintain security. Such a policy seems reasonable given that the majority of refugees will be at higher risk in transit in comparison with IDPs, because of the facts that they are crossing a border, they have often spent a longer time displaced from home and social networks. Distances from refugee camps to places of origin are often large, and host governments will also have a say in the method of repatriation of refugees from their countries. Return by trucks, however, maintains the onus or responsibility for initial settlement with the international community and further adds pressure to external actors to ensure that the right settlement options are planned in advance for returning refugees.

There are already several firm implications for the timing of refugee return which differs to that for IDPs. For refugees in Kakuma, for example, UNHCR estimates that logistical planning with Kenyan and SPLM/A authorities, as well as ‘look and see’ programmes involving refugee community representatives and the ensuing discussions with refugee communities, will demand at least six months after the signing of a peace agreement before a physical return process can be initiated this is assuming that lasting peace is achieved. The regional office anticipates that the timeframe for return would be nearer to 18 months, given the need to form and integrate a regional policy for the return of all Sudanese refugees in bordering countries. Concerning the method of material assistance, UNHCR would prefer, at this stage, to assist refugees with ‘pre-departure packs’ before they leave their country of asylum and look to handover to other supporting actors upon resettlement in Sudan thereafter.

In summary, it is clear even from these initial conclusions that there is likely to be a dichotomy between the mechanisms of return for refugee and IDPs and that such a dichotomy poses challenges to the harmonisation of resettlement policy within Sudan. It is further reasonable to speculate that for these reasons, it would be prudent to wait and see the preferred methods for assisting the return of IDPs before initiating and supporting widespread refugee repatriation.

4 UNOCHA interagency mission report 2002, and pers comm. Sudan programme officer, USAID, Nairobi


39 of 84

The next section focuses upon some possible scenarios for the return of refugees and discusses the advantages and disadvantages associated with each scenario.

J.4 Three scenarios for the return of refugees

The diagram below describes three potential mechanisms for the return of refugees. All start from the premise that regional policy will be to return refugees by truck (or by plane) and that security as well as the provision of accommodation, food and water will be provided in transit.


40 of 84


Figure 8 Three options for the return of refugees to South Sudan

Dur

able

rese

ttlem

ent c

oord

inat

ed b

y U

ND

P K

hart

oum

‘Hum

anita

rian’

ass

ista

nce

phas

e co

ordi

nate

d by

UN

HC

R R

O N

airo

bi

handover phase

Refugees leave Kakuma by truck

Way station 1- food and water provided- protection monitoring- accommodation for night

Way station X- food and water provided- protection monitoring- accommodation for night

Dispersal Station-food and water provided- protection monitoring-accommodation for night- liaison with SPLM for onward travel to sites with relatives

Home of relatives- HCR monitor visits home to ensure security of returnees- food distribution- construction of transitional shelter

Permanent settlement with relatives - livelihood support from developmental agencies

new settlement site- liaison with SPLM at new site to allocate land- durable shelter and livelihood support from developmental agencies

Dispersal Station-food and water provided- protection monitoring -accommodation for night- liaison with SPLM for onward travel to new settlement sites

new settlement site - liaison with SPLM at new site to allocate land - durable shelter and livelihood support from developmental agencies

scenario A scenario B scenario C

41 of 84J.4.1 Scenario A

Step 1Refugee returnees are taken to a dispersal station (which may be located at regional or county capitals). A register is taken and liaison is made directly with relatives or through the chiefs or sub-chiefs of relevant tribes through the camp administration (managed by local authorities in partnership with UNHCR) then onward transport is organized to their homes, or the homes of their relatives through SPLM/SRRC/County administration. Returnees are permitted to remain at the dispersal centres only for a period of several days where they receive basic assistance, such as food, water, shelter and sanitation.

The site selection for a dispersal centre might follow the normal UNHCR technical guidance for the creation of transit camps, and additionally be within easy communication with local administration and established road networks that can be upgraded simultaneously. Shelter might be provided with bush pole structures (sourced locally from sustainable resources ) clad in plastic sheeting (provided by UNHCR from regional stockpiles). Sanitation might be in the form of trench or VIP latrines. Water might be supplied from existing sources or, exceptionally, by new boreholes, depending upon land allocation restrictions. All resources might be retained as property of the local administration and not to be taken to the homes of returnees.

Step 2Returnees are then assisted to move to the homes of their relatives by SPLM and assisted by NGOs and other local institutions, and monitored by UNHCR. Shelter assistance and food distribution is provided at the home of the relative or can be collected from secondary and more localised distribution points. [It is at this point that refugee assistance might be harmonized and integrated with IDP assistance strategy].

Step 3Returnees can then decide whether they wish to settle permanently with their relatives and/or their tribe, or whether they wish to settle independently. If they choose to settle with their relatives, then access to services such as education and health, as well as support for livelihood development, is achieved through augmenting resources and programmes already in place to support the non-displaced. If returnees choose to settle independently at another site after a discrete period (timeframe to be decided), then they might make a request to the local authorities, which can arrange for subsequent transferral and land allocation at an alternative site. Developmental assistance will then be provided at the new location.

This option clearly has several immediately visible benefits. The first is that returnees can profit immediately from the social and livelihood support networks that are available to their relatives. If returnees then choose to settle permanently with their relatives or within their tribe, then existing education and health services can be augmented to serve displaced and non-displaced concurrently. This is both more cost efficient for local authorities and external supporting agencies, and reduces the potential for assistance afforded to refugees, IDPs and the non-displaced to be differentiated for political reasons. Finally, if returnees wish to settle independently at a later date, there is more time available for local authorities and supporting agencies to find suitable sites, agree upon land tenure issues


42 of 84and negotiate access with local residents. It further allows UNHCR and other humanitarian actors more time to plan for a handover of responsibilities to the local authorities (who will need considerable capacity building) as well a handover to other external developmental agencies.

There are however, several disadvantages. It is likely that all returnees will require food assistance until they can be self-sufficient. In addition, it is likely that protection staff will want to monitor the conditions and progress of returnees. Both distributions and monitoring are more involved and costly when settlement is dispersed. It must also be borne in mind that relatives who receive returnees may also become easily overburdened by demands of returnees following the cessation of a period of food assistance, especially if a natural disaster occurs, such as a flood or a drought. This occurred during 2000/01 when an organised return of 12,000 IDPs from camps in Eastern Equatoria were placed with relatives in Bor County and were forced to return the same year on foot when drought hit the region. For this reason, some county commissions (and undoubtedly SPLM) are opposed to placing the majority of returnees with relatives. This may influence the extent to which external agencies can advocate for this option to be implemented.

J.4.2 Scenario B

Step 1All refugee returnees are taken to regional dispersal centres. Those wishing to live with relatives are provided for as described in Scenario A. Those without relatives or who are unwilling to move back to their tribal areas remain at dispersal centres and receive basic humanitarian assistance until alternative settlement can be found.

Step 2Once suitable sites for settlement have been found, returnees remaining at the dispersal centre are transported to new sites by SPLM and subsequently allocated land. Local authorities and developmental agencies then provide access to livelihood support as well as services such as education and health at these new locations.

This scenario, similar to previous, provides SPLM and supporting agencies with more time to determine locations for durable resettlement, prepare supporting infrastructure (e.g. locate water supply and prepare boreholes, ensure road access, tender for shelter materials to be distributed) as well as, critically, build the capacity of the administration to deal with the long term settlement requirements of returnees. It is also important to note that protection monitoring and delivery of relief assistance during initial phases are also facilitated within grouped settlement, such as dispersal centres.

The obvious disadvantage to such a scenario is that returnees may not leave the ‘dispersal stations’ and that such stations become institutionalised transit camps instead, which are reliant on relief aid. Such camps have proved notoriously difficult to close (ref. HCR handbook). Such a risk has been picked up by numerous agencies including the UNCT in Khartoum (2002). In addition there is some evidence that dispersal stations that are occupied for anything other than a few days may be used to screen returnees for political reasons by the new administration.


43 of 84

J.4.3 Scenario C

All refugee returnees are taken straight to the site of permanent settlement. Those who wish to live with relatives or their tribe are taken straight to their villages from the country of asylum. Those wishing to settle independently are taken directly to new sites, the infrastructure for which has been prepared prior to transferral. SPLM allocates land upon arrival and local authorities and developmental agencies then provide access to livelihood support as well as services such as education and health at these new locations.

This is the most straightforward option to describe and, without doubt, the most complex to achieve successfully. The advantages are significant: there are no wasted resources invested at sites of temporary occupation and the potential for aid-dependent transit camps is all but eliminated.

A high degree of pre-planning and coordination, however, will be required to successfully implement this strategy. Pre-planning will be needed on a family-by-family basis involving UNHCR, SPLM, SRRC, the county authorities as well as other external developmental actors to ascertain returnee and authority preferences are compatible and further ensure the settlement choice of each family are sustainable. Additionally, any new sites selected for settlement will require significant infrastructure investment prior to a return effort. In Bor county, for example, many of the new sites identified for refugee and IDP return are currently without water or road access and expectations are that the international community will provide for all such requirements. Finally, the preparation of new sites with new services to provide for returning refugees and IDPs may cause resentment from non-displaced Sudanese groups if such settlement ‘appears’ to draw greater external investment than for existing settlement. The physical separation of settlements inhabited to a greater extent by refugees and IDPs may draw some of the institutional and political problems usually associated with the phenomena of refugee camps, whether or not resource allocation is equitable. Resource allocations may become indeed become inequitable if there is significant bi-lateral aid focus upon these settlements outside the direct control of coordinating mechanisms.


44 of 84

J.5 Options for the component parts of a pre-departure ‘package’ in the event of an HCR-led repatriation programme from Kakuma to South Sudan

This section briefly discusses pre-departure ‘packages’, which might be given to refugees returning to Sudan. It further outlines some options for components of a return package.

UNHCR BO expressed preference to provide pre-departure assistance rather than commit at this stage to a substantial involvement in providing assistance upon return. Whilst the regional office does not rule out family-based distributions in country, the need to harmonise assistance afforded to refugees, IDPs and non-displaced was raised as a key concern in this regard. There were, however, some concerns raised about the suitability of providing pre-departure packs. Protection staff from UNHCR indicated that pre-departure cash grants may make refugees more of a target in transit and during initial phases of resettlement, which will only add to security concerns.

The Sudanese in Kakuma expressed preference for cash grants. UNHCR RO, BO and SO all indicated that cash grants are being considered as an option. Certainly, there are successful precedents for such a strategy, notably Afghanistan, 2001 and Kosovo, 1999). The administration of such projects is relatively straightforward and families further have a greater autonomy to decide upon their priorities compared with material distributions. Cash packages, are however, was not without critics. Cash is certainly the most desirable commodity to potential looters on route and may add further to security concerns in transit. In addition, the absence of a single currency and a near total lack of a functional cash economy in the majority of southern Sudan mean that this option might prove to be limited in effect. The high variability of market prices may further make such a strategy unfair as buying power may vary depending upon the location of refugee return. Harmonisation with IDP assistance is further unclear. Catholic Relief Services (CRS), who are one of the largest NGOs operational in South Sudan, are currently planning a voucher distribution system to assist IDPs. If it is successful, it may prove more effective to follow IDP plans rather than introducing cash for refugees alone.

Shelter materials were also requested. There was a desire expressed by the Sudanese in Kakuma to take galvanized steel roof sheeting and small section timber supports with them back to Sudan. This has several advantages; GI Sheeting can provide a durable shelter solution and can further be combined with grass thatching to reduce solar gains. Sheeting is further a low volume material and could be easily and cheaply transported in the same trucks as families. Sheet roofing is now a familiar building material to all refugees in Kakuma and most now know how to build with it. Like a voucher system, GI sheeting could further be used as capital to sell as the demand for steel sheeting will be high in a post-peace Sudan, especially for constructing shops and stalls and providing secure doors. This effectively gives refugees the option for a further cash grant.

There are, however, several disadvantages; Whilst no parties consulted anticipate a follow-on use for vacated housing in Kakuma refugee camp at this time, it is not yet confirmed whether GoK, who are the de facto owners of private housing resources in Kakuma, will allow the removal of such property. Furthermore, it is unlikely that sheeting will be provided to IDPs coming from Khartoum and Equatoria (sheeting is not a prominent feature in Sudanese IDP camps) or to the non-displaced population. This may be cause for conflict, especially given the visibility of such differences in shelter assistance.


45 of 84

J.6 Options for Physical Resettlement in South Sudan

This section discusses potential resettlement strategies in two locations in southern Sudan; the first is in a rural context in Bor County and the second is in a semi-urban context in Rumbek Town.

J.6.1 Case Study 1 South Bor County

IntroductionMany refugees in Kakuma, northern Kenya are originally from Bor County. The assessment team met with the county commissioner for South Bor and his council to discuss their plans and expectations for repatriation after peace. The following map set graphically represent the existing conditions in Bor county, the settlement of returnees within existing settlement patterns (option A), the County Commissioner’s preferred resettlement strategy (option B) and a third speculative and compromise settlement option proposed by the authors (option C).

Figure 9 Administrative boundaries of Bor County


46 of 84

Figure 10 Existing settlement in Bor County

Existing settlement follows the roads with little inhabitation further than 20km from the road network and the Bahr El Jebel river to the west. The dotted line indicates the unfinished Jongolei Canal Project.


47 of 84

Figure 11 Swamplands in Bor County

The shaded areas illustrate the low-lying areas of the county and the swamplands that feed into the Bahr El Jebel.


48 of 84

Figure 12 Expansion of areas prone to flooding to the east

The lighter shaded area illustrates the area to the east as the water table has risen in recent years. This is reducing the availability of land suitable for pastoral and agricultural activities.


49 of 84

Figure 13 Desired dry lands to the east

The County Commissioner indicated that the majority of the existing population wish to move to the east to new pastures where conditions for pastoral and agricultural activities are viewed as better. There are, however, few water resources and no infrastructure such as roads, schools and health facilities in this locality, so no population movement has occurred to date.


50 of 84

Figure 14 Settlement Strategy A – Resettlement integrated within existing settlement

The red areas on the map indicate nominal areas for resettlement of returnee including both refugees and IDPs. Resettlement of returnees within existing settlement, typically involving initial settlement with family or tribal grouping, has the advantages and disadvantages described in scenario A, section J.4.1. To reiterate, such settlement allows returnees to immediately benefit form existing social support networks of the non-displaced, further allows external supporting agencies to intervene within an existing settlement framework and buys more time for the international community build the capacity of the local administration and further prepare for any subsequent resettlement. Many refugees and IDPs, however, may not necessarily have willing relatives to move in with, so this settlement strategy cannot be applied to everyone. In addition, winning local and national Sudanese support for such a strategy may prove to be a challenge if it is seen to be the only strategy supported by external agencies.


51 of 84

Figure 15 Settlement Strategy B – Resettlement 60 KM to the East of existing settlement

This strategy is preferred by the county commissioner and by local chiefs and would involve preparing new settlements to the east prior to the return and resettlement of IDPs and refugees.

Such a strategy has several advantages as described in scenario C in figure 15. Resources allocated in initial phases can be used for long-term development of the region. Assuming the existing population move toward the new settlements in the east, then the non-displaced may also benefit from development of communal infrastructures. It could also be argued that supporting settlement development in the swamplands to the west could cause significant waste of resources over the long term if the existing and returnee population moves east regardless of support, because of faltering ability to maintain livelihoods.

Such a strategy would, however, require massive infrastructure investment within a relatively short timeframe. A new road would be required to run north-south in parallel to the existing road from Bor to Malakal to serve the new settlements, and substantial


52 of 84investment would be required to locate and prepare boreholes and wells to supply water. The water table is considerably deeper here than in the west of the county which would also add to cost. The preparation of such infrastructure and settlement prior to, or in tandem with a return of refugees and IDPs carries greater risks that facilities may prove to be inappropriately designed or sited. It might further be difficult for donors to justify the use of resources earmarked for emergency repatriation in order to support the construction of extensive new settlements if such projects are perceived to be too ‘developmental’ or too large and too risky. Disparity in infrastructure investment across the country might also compromise a visibly equitable national development strategy. Finally, it is noteworthy that the Commissioner of South Bor was quite open in his description of the security risks posed by the Murles tribe for any new settlement undertaken in the east (including ongoing abductions of children living in Bor County) and indicated that a number of police posts to provide security would also be required to maintain security.


53 of 84

Figure 16 Settlement Strategy C – Resettlement 20 KM to the East of existing settlement

This strategy indicates the resettlement of IDPs and refugees 20KM to the east of existing settlements. This allows for market links within walking distance with settlement on the existing Bor-Malakal road and may not require a new road to be constructed north-south in parallel to the existing road. Viability of this option will depend upon the extent to which this nearer land is prone to flooding and its suitability for agricultural and pastoral activities, as well as the availability and cost of providing potable water.


54 of 84J.6.2 Conclusion to first case study

The authors noted a consensus and detailed comments given by the county commission concerning planning for the reintegration returnees to Bor County. This is driven by experiences of an IDP return programme to the county in 2000/01. Adopting a single policy of only resettling returnees with relatives will not be possible for all and is further likely to be opposed by the local authorities in Bor county. Conversely, the development of new sites for resettlement carries a high capital premium as well as other risks discussed earlier.

There are three recommendations:

Determine the existing resource allocations and maximum population carrying capacities for each existing settlement in Bor County to give an indication of the scope of need for new settlements.

Undertake a survey to quantify the extent to which the current non-displaced population is planning to move east towards better agricultural and pastoral land, and estimate the likely impact upon livelihood security of remaining.

Undertake a joint evaluation with the country commission to determine the suitability of new sites for settlement, particularly as most of the proposed sites for development are in fact old settlement sites from 10-20 years ago. Establishing the availability of water, the extent of agricultural land and the potential for mechanized access for each site would help to determine where resources for resettlement might be focused.


55 of 84J.6.3 Case Study Two - Rumbek

IntroductionRumbek is currently a small town with a population of about 15-20,000 persons. Following a successful peace process, Rumbek is likely to expand rapidly. This will be partly due to the returnee caseload but also because it is likely to become a centre for growing economic activity. Issues of development and land tenure in Rumbek are likely to also treated very differently compared with rural areas such as Bor County. Whilst there are fewer refugees and IDPs from Rumbek county and the Bahr El Ghazal region compared with Bor county and Upper Nile regions, it is useful to gain an idea of the current thinking concerning settlement of returnees and how this might differ to localised planning elsewhere.

The population growth will become exponential if either of the following two scenarios becomes manifest:

Rumbek becomes the de facto ‘transitional’ administrative capital of South Sudan following a peace process for an interim period until GOS troops have withdrawn from Juba, Wau or Malakal.

Some, or the majority of the logistics functions of Lokichoggio is transferred to Rumbek.

The SPLM Secretary General, did not rule out the possibility that Rumbek would expand following a sustainable peace agreement for either reason described above, although he leaned towards the possibility that Juba may open up reasonably quickly and that SPLM would push strongly for Juba to be the capital.

The town planning council in Rumbek is already faced with population growth, which has doubled since 1998. Organised settlement along the existing road network is expanding, and informal settlement is highest in the market areas and adjacent to the NGO compounds. The council is struggling to keep up with such expansion, although land tenure policy is currently being discussed and proposed based upon former British models and some rudimentary mapping exercises have been undertaken in the key pressure areas.

It was hoped that a rudimentary GPS survey would have been possible. Security restrictions, however, meant that this was not possible. Instead, several sketch maps have been prepared in collaboration with the land surveyor in the town council to give an idea of the existing development, the potential for future expansion and the challenges that this poses.


56 of 84

Figure 17 Existing water points in Rumbek Town

Figure 18 The administrative boundary of the town extends in a six-mile radius.


6 miles

57 of 84Figure 19 The grey areas indicate existing urbanisation in the town, which has occurred adjacent to the roads

Figure 20 The coloured blocks indicate some of the key zones in the town


market

UN/NGO compounds

SPLM/Govt sites

Airstrip

58 of 84

Figure 21 Potential site for refugee reception/dispersal centre

The issue of returnees to Rumbek County and the potential for the need for a reception or dispersal centres were discussed with the town council. There was consensus that should such a facility be required, it should be physically separated from the town, as it exists currently. The town surveyor identified a site at a school to the north east of the town on the road to Wau but within the administrative boundary of the town.


Potential refugee reception/dispersal

centre

59 of 84

Figure 22 Expanding areas of Rumbek

Such a strategy would appear to have several advantages. Firstly, it is on the other side of town from the market and NGO compounds, which are currently expanding rapidly and are further likely to do so in the future. Secondly, it is adjacent to good quality agricultural land to the south which is further unoccupied. This not only allows for expansion of reception or dispersal centre should it be required, but might also facilitate resettlement adjacent to the town, should returnees choose to permanently settle adjacent to the town instead of opting to return to their rural homelands.


60 of 84J.6.4 Conclusion to second case study

Whether or not Rumbek becomes a transitional capital or a substantial logistics base for the reconstruction of southern Sudan, there is clear evidence that the town council is ill prepared to cope with a continued and sustained increase in rural-to-urban population migration from within the existing community. Further, the town council will be under additional pressures to cope with town planning should Rumbek become part a centre for the dispersal and resettlement of returnees to Rumbek County.

Two forms of assistance might be offered by UN-Habitat DMP in the first instance:

1) Tools and training for surveying mapping

A mapping survey would give the town council greater visibility of sectoral need, both in the town and the county, to cope with population growth. This would also have several knock-on benefits, as currently, NGOs are not focussed upon Rumbek as a town rather only as parts of catchment areas based around target populations in the county. Comprehensive themed maps would focus and facilitate multi-sectoral planning in the town and further allow NGOs to better coordinate with local counterparts concerning urban development.

2) Capacity-building in land tenure and sectoral coordination

As mentioned previously, the town council is in the early stages of developing land tenure based upon colonial models. Support in the development of land tenure policy at this early stage would also present a useful opportunity for the international community to participate in forming settlement response for the return of refugees and IDPs. Capacity building is also required for the development of sectoral plans at an urban scale. There are, for example, no accurate maps of water points and sanitation facilities and this poses a risk of contamination of water sources, particularly in areas of informal development such as in the market place. Development of storm water drainage is also required to reduce standing water in the town and reduce the potential for vector transfer of disease.

J.7 Chapter Conclusion

Hard and fast planning is not only an impossibility in the current political climate in South Sudan, but is further likely to be counter-productive. Resettlement in Bor County and Rumbek Town, as in the rest of South Sudan, is likely to involve aspects of all three speculative strategies described earlier in this chapter, either to a greater or a lesser extent. Flexibility in approach to planning is required largely because there are limits to the extent in this instance to which resettlement can be planned for and controlled. Previous large-scale return and resettlement programmes have occurred without the support and participation of centralised authorities and the international community, and agencies may find themselves following people regardless of the best-laid plans.

The intention of this exercise, therefore, is to illustrate how a range of settlement strategies might impact upon the sustainability of the livelihoods of returnees; the demands upon local authorities, the international community and to further present arguments to support eventual decisions concerning settlement support when information of a higher resolution concerning localised social contexts becomes available.


61 of 84Whilst the majority of refugees and IDPs have been able to maintain at least limited contact with those in their homelands, not all displaced persons are necessarily in a strong position to make an informed decision about where to settle. For example, access to livelihood support and education are two key factors affecting where people will choose to live, and where there remains considerable uncertainty. It may be that to a greater extent the physical locations of new resources will not be decided until after a significant number of people return. This may mean that many choose to resettle after an initial return, or may choose for a time to continue to move between dispersal stations, the homes of their relatives and friends, new settlement sites and economic centres such as markets or towns until more informed settlement decisions can be made. Admitting that this process will happen anyway and allowing people to make informed choices is likely to produce more sustainable solutions that relying upon central and/or external authorities to make the right resettlement decisions on behalf of a returning population.

If SPLM and the international community are to uphold the right of returnees to autonomously decide where to settle, and subsequent ‘secondary’ movements of returnees are indeed significant, then this raises complex issues concerning how to monitor vulnerables, how to monitor the distribution of aid and the ability of local authorities to select the best sites for infrastructure resources which allow for efficient and equitable distribution of resources. With these points in mind, greater participation will be required from humanitarian actors, such as UNHCR, to assist refugees and local authorities to select settlement strategies that are sustainable and flexible.

The key to successful resettlement of returnees will be to anticipate and plan for settlement preferences of IDPs and refugees on a family-by-family basis, and then allow for flexibility in a final settlement choice. This might involve the identification of a series of checks and balances to facilitate and support subsequent settlement movements after initial return. For example, it would be a huge advantage to discuss land tenure and the plan for the process of land allocation at the local level in parallel to the national debate and prior to a return process. This could identify land and other resources that could be used and shared with returnees, it could also indicate local opinion as well as external ‘expert’ opinion concerning the maximum carrying capacities of existing and new settlement sites, and where ‘spare capacity’ may exist. Such a process would allow many potential conflicts concerning resettlement of returnees to be anticipated or even played out before vulnerable groups are exposed to avoidable risk. It would also allow give local authorities and supporting agencies more options and tools to use for negotiation with returnees should secondary movements occur.

Finally, whilst security conditions and access to livelihoods in Sudan will clearly be the dominant factors in determining who returns to Sudan and when, access to education will also be a key determinant. The main finding to come from the Kakuma assessment was the link between education and settlement decisions. Families with children in camp schools are more likely to delay return until such time that the benefit from education resources in Kakuma is maximized or equivalent resources have been made available in Sudan. The timing of transfers and mechanisms for integration, therefore, of refugee teaching staff in southern Sudan will directly impact upon the rate of return. It is not clear whether this is also true for those living in IDP camps in Khartoum and elsewhere in Sudan, but if discussions with those who have been exposed to the benefits of education in refugee camps do reveal a general indicator of values, this may bear significance for countrywide resettlement policy.


k7

Kakuma exit and handover

62 of 84

K Options and considerations for exit and handover to the Kenyan Authorities of facilities and resources in Kakuma Refugee Camp


63 of 84

K.1 Introduction

This work was primarily undertaken to inform the development of ‘interagency guidelines for transitional settlement’, which is funded by DFID. It is intended that this work will inform the 2nd draft of the guidelines concerning ‘exit and handover from camp settlements’ and will further provide a stand-alone case study for the document. Please refer to www.shelterproject.org for more information.

The key focus of this section is upon what will happen to Kakuma as a settlement if and when it ceases to function as a refugee camp. Two issues are central to this debate: i) how might external agencies develop exit strategies to anticipate cessation of programme implementation in Kakuma and; ii) how a handover of resources and infrastructure to local, national and other external developmental actors might be organised.

K.2 Method

A variety of stakeholders in Kakuma and Nairobi were consulted concerning the issue of camp closure. These groups included, UNHCR BO and RO Nairobi (technical and logistics departments), UNHCR SO Kakuma, (programme, community services and protection), as well as operational NGOs involved with the provision of infrastructure, health and education services and environmental rehabilitation. Camp residents were also consulted including Dinka and Nuer leadership, unaccompanied minors (UAMs), women’s groups, groups involved in income generating activities, teachers and the youth.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to speak to the Kenyan authorities in Nairobi or in Turkana or with local chiefs in Kakuma. Kenyan authority attitude and the local sentiment and expectations were, however, derived from interviews with other stakeholders in Kakuma.

K.3 Background

Kakuma is one of the most institutionalised camps in Africa. It is also sited in an extremely harsh environment with very few natural resources. As a direct consequence, external agencies have been forced to recreate an entire ‘life support’ system to sustain the population, which is currently estimated to be circa 85,000. Should refugees start to leave the camp in significant numbers, the extent to which the huge amount of capital that has been invested in the camp over the past 12 years might be ‘acquired’ for local uses will feature prominently in minds of the local and national authorities in Kenya, as well as those who will continue to live in Turkana.

The camp has had a significant and irrevocable impact upon the local Turkana population. For example, the refugee-driven economy has been the primary cause of changes in Turkana livelihoods and patterns of settlement over the past decade. This presents an additional responsibility upon GoK and the international community to ensure that the rug is not pulled out from under the feet of those among the Turkana population who have come to rely on the refugee economy for their survival.

The camp has also had a dramatic affect on the local and regional environment. Deforestation, pollution of water sources and the lowering of the water table are some of major negative impacts that must be addressed before handover and exit from Kakuma


http://www.shelterproject.org/

64 of 84becomes possible. The extent of the environmental damage, however, means that full rehabilitation will at best take several decades to achieve and at worst will mean accepting that some environmental damage is irrevocable. It follows that a final handover of ‘the environment’ in Kakuma is likely to involve significant compromise upon the part of the Kenyan government as well as some form of indirect compensation from the international community for such damage.

Planning for handover is further compounded by the fact that whilst GoK has been involved in national issues relating to the settlement of refugees, e.g. site selection and national security-related concerns, the Government and local authorities have had little involvement with the management of the camp itself. This means that the ability to identify and build local capacity to manage and administrate camp resources ahead of a handover is limited. The lack of interaction at the local level also hampers the potential for the development of a long-term development plan for Kakuma at the national level.

K.4 Assumptions

It is possible to speculate about the potential for Kakuma to reduce in size and eventually close, if a series of assumptions are made. The long-term future of the camp will be linked to two primary issues: i) the final peace agreement for South Sudan currently being discussed in Machokos, Kenya and ii) the detail of the refugee bill currently being debated in the Kenyan parliament, which contains both local and regional integration clauses.

i) Machakos Peace Agreement. Should Machakos be successful and sustainable peace is achieved in South Sudan, an effort to facilitate the return of Sudanese refugees from Kakuma will follow. It is feasible that the current camp caseload could drop to 20,000 by 2006. This projection is based upon three assumptions i) the 12,500 Somali Bantu in Kakuma are successfully resettled to the USA, ii) 50% of the Sudanese refugees in Kakuma return to Sudan within three years and iii) re-registration accounts for double counting in the camp registry, which is estimated to be between 10-20,000 persons.

ii) The Refugee Bill. The remaining Sudanese who are unable or unwilling to be repatriated, as well as other refugee nationals currently residing in the camp are likely to remain in Kakuma for the foreseeable future. It is unlikely that the GoK would want to force camp closure before such time as return or local integration becomes possible, unless local security conditions continue to deteriorate below current levels. If local and regional integration clauses in the refugee bill are passed through the Kenyan Parliament, however, the possibility that Kakuma may cease to function as a refugee camp altogether becomes tenable by 2006.

K.5 Handover

A significant reduction in the camp population will also bring expectations that redundant resources will become available for the use of local population, especially once such redundancy becomes visible. There are several physical camp resources that are likely to be in high demand. These are water supply, health facilities, education facilities and the return of camp land to those with previous land rights. Handover will also involve attempting to return the local and regional environment to its original state.


65 of 84K.5.1 water supply. Water resources are scarce in and around Kakuma. Some boreholes will be decommissioned as demand will not be high enough to justify both maintenance and running costs. Boreholes on the camp boundaries and near to existing Turkana settlements, however, may require that they are made permanently available for local use. It may be necessary to retrofit boreholes that currently use mechanical pumps with hand pumping equipment instead. This will reduce daily yield but also dramatically will reduce maintenance and running costs, which will be the primary concern of authorities and any other supporting agencies.

K.5.2 health facilities. Health facilities are perhaps the most difficult infrastructure to handover, as the maintenance costs, running costs, and staff costs, are all relatively high. There is further no clear indication at this point that GOK is be prepared to commit the necessary resources to augment health facilities in Kakuma to meet demand. Currently, the local population are served by the mission hospital, which is in Kakuma town. Whilst the mission hospital is under-resourced and could benefit from extra capacity, the physical separation of the camp and town facilities may mean that it may be better to transfer equipment and materials to the mission hospital rather than trying to maintain facilities at multiple sites.

The current camp hospital is about to be relocated from zone three due to river erosion at the site. This presents an opportunity to plan for handover, as new health resources could well be required to serve the local population within a reasonably short time frame. The local Kenyan authorities and the mission hospital in Kakuma should be actively encouraged to take part in the development and site selection of any new health facilities in the camp. It may be that site selection is influenced by both the longer-term demand from the local population as well as the short to medium-term requirements of refugees.

K.5.3 education. Schools in the camp currently provide education to Turkana children as well as refugees. The demand for education is increasing among the existing Turkana population, which is currently estimated to be circa 48,000. Furthermore, the static population in and around Kakuma town is increasing, which is aggregating demand for education resources in Kakuma. This indicates physical education resources in the camp, such as classrooms and teaching materials are likely to be sought by the local population following a camp consolidation phase.

It has been suggested that if the catchment area of the education facilities in Kakuma within Turkana continues to increase, and the daily walking distances become too large for some children to manage, it might be plausible for boarding schools to be created in the camp. This would carry lower costs that the creation and support of a network of dispersed rural schools across the county, although it is not clear whether such a policy would be supported by the district office in Lodwar, or whether GOK has any plans to commit resources to meet the rising demand for education in the district. The allocation of funds to pay for teachers’ salaries is likely to be the main issue.

Schools and infrastructure should be identified for long-term local use at suitable and sustainable sites (away from river erosion areas, near to boreholes with adequate long-term capacity. External developmental actors are likely to be required to support the transition from management by humanitarian agencies to national authorities, particularly concerning training of teachers.


66 of 84

K.5.4 access to camp land. The selection of the site for a refugee camp to accommodate refugees arriving in Kenya in 1992 was largely dictated by GOK. There then followed a careful negotiation between GOK, and UNHCR with the local leadership to ensure that local Turkana population accepted the settlement of refugees on their land and that they would be willing to share resources and in some cases vacate the land.

This has not been an easy process and one that has caused numerous conflicts over the past decade. It is clear, however, that those that previously occupied the land in Kakuma will want to resume ownership and control of resources. The return of all camp land to previous occupiers may be blocked by central government if resources are to be used for some as yet unidentified purpose, although it is likely that some land will be made available.

The question remains, however, what the land will be used for following reoccupation. It is unlikely that the land will be used for grazing given the extent of the environmental damage and lack of vegetation within the camp boundary. It is more likely that the camp will become an extension of the town. The extent to which the camp becomes part of the town will be directly linked to the potential for continued economic growth in Kakuma town following the departure of refugees. Should market and trade continue to grow, it is likely that there will be private demand for settlement resources within the camp. This could well mean parts of the camp in close proximity to the road become absorbed into the town. The value of land within the camp will then rise exponentially in these areas as the potential to set up local market stall and shops on such land also rises, whilst areas at the eastern and northern extremities of the camp away from economic activity will remain low value. There may well be other pockets of land away from the town that also have a high value such as land adjacent to water, health and education resources that are selected for continued operation.

The status of vacated refugee housing following camp closure is also not clear. Whilst refugees have the right to use and occupy housing whilst they are in Kenya, it is GOK that technically has ownership rights. Dinka leadership has indicated that the Turkana expect refugee housing will be made available to all following the vacation of the parts or the whole of the site. The move to provide steel roofing for refugee accommodation in 2000 clearly made sense in terms of maintenance, but it should be in mind that this housing is of a higher standard than shelter in most Turkana homesteads and will be in particular demand from those who have settled informally in, or near to the town.

The decision, therefore, as to who is allowed to settle and where within the camp boundary, is likely to be increasingly contentious and one that will require lengthy negotiation with local leadership to avoid further conflict over resource availability.


67 of 84K.5.5 EnvironmentThere is already considerable pressure at national and local levels upon the international community to undertake both short-term mitigation measures to prevent further damage to the environment and long-term programmes to start the massive task of rehabilitation. Recent changes to regional weather patterns and ‘El Nino’ have also had dramatic effects upon the environment in Kakuma, however, it is difficult, if not impossible to distinguish between the damage that may be attributable to settlement of refugees and that which is an effect of more general climate change.

Mitigation measures are already being implemented by GTZ. Activities include public education and awareness campaigns concerning the collection and use of firewood and the promotion of reforestation on ‘private’ land. Some long-term rehabilitation has also been initiated, including the establishment of green belt areas where indigenous plants and trees have been reintroduced inside protected quarters. In addition, a local environmental working group (EWG) has been created. This group is formed of refugees, local chiefs and the local authority and meets one every two months to discuss environmental issues. This initiative is widely regarded as a success as it allows all stakeholders to express their views in public and allows for proactive, targeted remedial action. It has further been an invaluable opportunity to discuss the extent to which refugees and the international community are responsible for environmental damage and are further able to undertake rehabilitation. This is a positive step towards managing expectations and avoiding future conflict.

It is not possible for full rehabilitation to be complete before handover. In any case, such work requires require greater involvement from GoK line ministries (for example agriculture, forestry, fishing and DPW) as well as other larger external developmental agencies (for example UNEP and UNDP) to be truly effective. Significant rehabilitation of the region to mitigate the negative environmental effects incurred over the past 13 years is likely to take a further 20-30 years. UNHCR can only start the rehabilitation process as such work is outside its core mandate. UNEP and the appropriate GoK line ministries should, therefore, plan for a handover of responsibilities when it is plausible to do so.

K.6 Conclusion

There are widespread expectations among the Turkana population that all existing services will continue to run after the departure of the Sudanese5. Whilst this clearly will not be possible, or even required to meet needs, there is much work to be done concerning the management of local expectations. It would seem sensible to start a forum at the grass roots level in order to meet these issues head on. Using the existing EWG forum to address such issues might prove to be the most straightforward approach.

Whilst there is a need for detailed physical planning to anticipate the manner in which the camp may be ‘consolidated’ as the refugee population reduces to eventual closure, it is worth noting that resources in the camp are sufficiently numerous to cope with even the highest estimates of future local demand. The real issue to be resolved is not purely the handover of physical resources, but the extent to which human capacity is available to manage and sustain the use of such resources, and the allocation of national and local funds to cover maintenance and running costs. Some capacity-building has already started in Turkana with UNDP, UNEP, UNICEF, WHO and other locally-focussed NGOs (such as the church organisations) to address the need for such a demand for a suitably

5 pers comm. Representative, Jesuit Relief Services, Lodwar.


68 of 84skilled labour force, although GoK has yet to assume a leading role in this process. The danger is that without the involvement and integration with a GOK regional development plan for Turkana, the ability to pre-plan for a handover will be restricted to speculation, such as that described in this report.


69 of 84

L recommendations

L.1 General recommendations from livelihoods/settlement findings

Recommendations for UNHCR

The return of teachers from IDP and refugee camps will impact upon the will of others to return home.

Recommendations to UN-Habitat DMP

Given the potential for rapid urban migration, local administrations will need support in their attempts to retain skilled individuals who would provide much-needed human capital for local development. Support to identify skilled points of contact that can receive additional training and/or assistance in training others would be useful.

Opportunities for training as well as opportunities for employment will affect the desire of well-educated youth to remain in south Sudan. Facilitating the expansion of programs by different agencies to include a well-structured (with a recognised qualification) training program would help to prevent ‘brain-drain’.

Undertake capacity building with local administrations in Sudan to coordinate multi-sector agency activity prior to the initiation of a return process.

Undertake Capacity building to support management and record-keeping for education, health and agriculture departments of local administrations.

Facilitating the pooling of training materials, such as teacher training manuals, vocation skills and IGA manuals produced by agencies operating both inside and outside south Sudan would allow general standards to be set. It would further allow for standardisation of qualifications issued by agencies such as ‘diplomas’, and certificates of course completion, which would assist those seeking employment with no formal qualifications.


l7

recommendations

70 of 84

L.2 Recommendations for settlement support in South Bor County

Three recommendations are made:

- Determine the existing resource allocations and maximum population carrying capacities for each existing settlement in Bor County to compare with displacement caseload estimates in order to give an indication of the scope of need for new settlements. - Undertake a survey to quantify the extent to which the current non-displaced population is planning to move east towards better agricultural and pastoral land, and estimate the likely impact upon livelihood security. - Undertake a joint evaluation with the country commission to determine the suitability of new sites for settlement, particularly as most of the proposed sites for development are in fact old settlement sites from 10-20 years ago. Establishing the availability of water, the extent of agricultural land and the potential for mechanized access for each site would help to determine where resources for resettlement might be focused.

L.3 Recommendations for settlement support in Rumbek

Whether or not Rumbek becomes a transitional capital or a substantial logistics base for reconstruction, there is clear evidence that the town council is ill prepared to cope with a continued and sustained increase in rural-to-urban population migration from within the existing community. Further, the town council will be under additional pressures to cope with town planning should Rumbek become a centre for the dispersal and resettlement of returnees to Rumbek County.

Two recommendations are made:

Tools and training for surveying mappingA mapping survey would give the town council greater visibility of sectoral need, both in the town and the county, to cope with population growth. This would also have several knock-on benefits, as currently, NGOs are not focussed upon Rumbek as a town rather only as parts of catchment areas based around target populations in the county. Comprehensive themed maps would focus and facilitate multi-sectoral planning in the town and further allow NGOs to better coordinate with local counterparts concerning urban development.

Capacity-building in land tenure and sectoral coordinationThe town council is in the early stages of developing land tenure based upon colonial models. Support in the development of land tenure policy at this early stage is an opportunity for the international community to participate in forming settlement response for the return of refugees and IDPs. Capacity building is also required for the development of multi-sector plans at an urban scale.

The county commission had detailed and developed plans for the return and resettlement of refugees and IDPs, which should form the basis for international assistance. It is worth noting that a single policy of resettling returnees with relatives will not be possible for all returnees and is further likely to be opposed by local authorities. Conversely, the development of new sites for resettlement carries a high capital premium.


71 of 84

M annexes

The following annexes are included:M.1 Population figuresM.2 Acronyms/abbreviationsM.3 Diary/itineryM.4 T.O.R.M.5 Persons met/contacted by telephoneM.6 Circulation listM.7 Bibliography

M.1 population figures

Figure m1 Population of Kakuma by gender, age and ethnic origin – total = 82,200

Source: LWF (2002a)


m7

annexes

72 of 84Figure m2 Population of Rumbek County by Payam, 2000/2002

Source: OUNRHCS (2003)

Figure m3 Population of South Bor, 1999

Source: CRS 2001a


73 of 84

M.2 acronyms/abbreviations

OUNRHCS The Office of the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan

STARBASE Sudan Transition and Recovery DatabaseCRS Catholic Relief ServicesGoS Government of SudanSPLM Sudan People’s Liberation MovementSPLA Sudan People’s Liberation ArmyQDLS ‘Quick and Dirty’ Livelihoods SurveyLWFBS LWF Baseline SurveyIGA Income Generation Activities


74 of 84

M.3 diary/itinery

The itinery changed half-way through the mission. Due to difficulties with communications and potential problems with security, a planned assessment of Labone, intended for July 1st – 4th, was cancelled.

Date Location Activities8th June Nairobi Arrival in Nairobi. Met with Chris Hutton, UN-Habitat, for informal briefing.9th June Nairobi Meeting with Dan Lewis, UN-Habitat.

Meeting with Eric Verschuur, UN-Habitat.Meeting with Nick Taylor, UN/OCHA, and Jean-Francois Darcq, UNICEF/OLS.

10th June Nairobi Meeting with Ted Maly, USAID.Meeting with Arun Salu-Ngarm, UNHCR.

11th June Nairobi Meeting with Nick Sutherland, CARE.Meeting with Harold Weepner and Steve MacDowell, FAO.Meeting with Anoushiravan Daneshvar, UNHCR and Arun Salu-Ngarm, UNHCR.

12th June Kakuma Fly to Kakuma from Nairobi.Welcomed by Mr. Chanda, Head of Sub Office, UNHCR.Meeting with World Vision.

13th June Kakuma Meeting with GTZ.Meeting with World Vision.Meeting with Evangeline Kamau, Community Services, LWF.Try to arrange meetings with Turkana District Commissioner.

14th June Kakuma Meeting with Sudanese Community Leaders.15th June Kakuma Break16th June Kakuma Meeting with Eunice Kimaliro, Education, LWF.

Meeting with Youth Leaders and George Chemkang, LWF.Informal meeting with JRS.

17th June Kakuma Meeting with Education Committee.Meeting with Teachers, Kakuma Secondary School.Meeting with pupils, Kakuma Secondary School.Meeting with Liv Feijen, Protection Officer, UNHCR.Meeting with Khalid Shar, Programme Officer, UNHCR.Meeting with Mathieu Balole, Don Bosco.Meeting with Lokiru Matendo, Officer in Charge, LWF.

18th June Kakuma Meeting with Lucy Githaiga, Human Rights, LWF.Meeting with unaccompanied minors.Meeting with Kakuma 2 residents.Meeting with ex-students from Don Bosco.Meeting with Nuer community.

19th June Kakuma/Loki Meeting with Sudanese traders/businessmen.Meeting with GTZ.Collect livelihood surveys.Travel to Lokichoggio.Meeting with CRS.

20th June Lokichoggio 1-day security training workshop.21st June Loki/Rumbek Meeting with Peter Mutua, UNICEF.22nd June Rumbek Meeting with Commissioner of Rumbek.23rd June Rumbek Meeting with Rumbek town council.

Meeting with Diakonie.Meeting with UNICEF.

24th June Rumbek Meeting with Headmaster, Rumbek High School.Meeting with pupils, Rumbek High School.

25th June Rumbek Meetings with Oxfam.Meeting with Taxation Officer.Meeting with CRS.

26th June Rumbek Meeting with Diocese of Rumbek.Meeting with Jason Matus, IGAD.Meeting with Women’s Development Group.Meeting with Youth Information Project.

27th June Rumbek/Anyidi Travel to Anyidi.Welcomed by Maker Lual Kuol, CRS.

28th June Anyidi Meeting with South Bor County District Commissioner.Meeting with MedAir, Padak.

29th June Anyidi Meeting with community representatives, Anyidi.


75 of 8430th June Anyidi Meeting with primary school teachers, Anyidi.

Meeting with Henry Soita, Save the Children Sweden.1st July Anyidi/Loki Meeting with Maker Lual Kuol, CRS.

Travel to Lokichoggio.2nd July Loki/Nairobi Meeting with MedAir.

Travel to Nairobi.3rd July Nairobi Write-up of preliminary findings.4th July Nairobi Meeting with Vincent Chordi, UNHCR Logistics RO Nairobi.5th July Nairobi Write-up of preliminary findings.6th July Nairobi Break.7th July Nairobi Meeting with Anoushiravan Daneshvar, UNHCR, Arun Salu-Ngarm, UNHCR and

others (ask pete for others) (presentation of preliminary findings).Meeting with Vincent Langdon Morris, CRS and Debbie Shomberg, CRS.

8th July Nairobi Report writing.9th July Nairobi Report writing.10th July Nairobi Report writing.11th July Nairobi Meeting with Chris Hutton, UN-Habitat and Dan Lewis, UN-Habitat (presentation of

findings).


76 of 84

M.4 persons met or contacted by telephone or email

Name Position Organisation Telephone EmailThomas Agou Kui Child Development

Officer?? KAKUMA

Soloma Angiel Secretary Bahr El Ghazal Women’s Development Committee (BWDC)

Nick Southern Regional Manager, Central/East Africa & Middle East

CARE +44 (0) 20 7934 9334

[email protected]

Kakutu Musombuia Youth Leader Congolese community, Kakuma

Debbie Shomberg CRSVincent Langdon-Morris

Asst. Country Representative

CRS 254-2 3748 022

[email protected]

Bihor Compound Manager Diakone, RumbekUllie Field Co-ordinator Diakone, RumbekFather Salvatori and colleagues

Diocese of Rumbek

Mathieu Balole ?? Don BoscoHarold Weepener GIS Specialist FAO +254-2

[email protected]

Stephen McDowell HHFS Information Co-ordinator

FAO +254-2 2725359

[email protected]

Siyad Shide Samatar Project Field Co-ordinator

GTZ, Kakuma +254-2 573228

Jason Matus Observer IGAD - [email protected] Page Legal expert IGAD 254-2 719337 [email protected] Muor Wel Manager Information Centre

Youth Programme, Rumbek

[email protected]

Joseph Mc Cartan Liason Officer, Lokichoggio

Joint Military Commission, Nuba Mountains

254 398 32242 [email protected]

Aquilla Kelei Madol School deputy Kakuma Refugee Camp Secondary School

Augostino Loro Headmaster Kakuma Refugee Camp Secondary School

David Stone Environmental Livelihoods Specialist

LIVES Advisory Group/Consultant for UNHCR

+41 22 3664439

[email protected]

Eunice Kimaliro Deputy Education Co-ordinator

LWF, Kakuma [email protected]

Evangeline Kamau Community Service & Development Co-ordinator

LWF, Kakuma 254-2 577777 [email protected]

George Chemkang Youth Officer LWF, Kakuma [email protected]

Lokiru Matendo Officer in charge LWF, Kakuma [email protected]

Lucy Githaiga Human Rights and Gender Officer

LWF, Kakuma [email protected]

William Tembu Education Officer LWF, Kakuma [email protected]

Peter ___ Co-ordinator Med-Air, Padak, Bor County

Cathy Benetti Information Officer Norwegian Refugee Council

+41(0)22 7990710

[email protected]

Peter Matua RPO OLS/UNICEFAshford Gichohi Food Security Officer Oxfam, RumbekDavid Deng Agok Acting County

Education OfficerRumbek administration

Moses Malkul Taxation Officer Rumbek administrationPaul Macuai Malok Commissioner Rumbek administrationChol Tong Mayay Headmaster Rumbek High School [email protected]














77 of 84or [email protected]

Abinico Maker (Deputy ED Finance)

Rumbek Town Planning committee

Abraham Majak Gum (Deputy ED Lands)


Alfred Maaing (Lands Dept)


Barnaba Makuac Masoc (Water and Sanitation)


Commander Deng SPLA Rumbek Town Planning committee

Dut Mayen Wol (Health)


Elijah Malok (SRRC) Rumbek Town Planning committee

Gabriel Anyar Majut Agok (Secretary)


Kuc John Akot (ED Judiciary)


Manesio Mayen (Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries)


Mater Mayoeb Manyel (Civil Engineer)

Civil engineer Rumbek Town Planning committee

Mubor Ohawo Mubor Town Mayor Rumbek Town Planning committee

Paul Ater Riak (Deputy ED Admin)


William Wek (Survey Engineer)

Survey Rumbek Town Planning committee

Abraham Deng Kuot Coordinator SCF/SBC

South Bor County Council

Agot Maaul Maduk Radio operator South Bor County Council

Ayii Awan Aduot Finance Officer South Bor County Council

Bullen Ayuen Mabtor Council Member South Bor County Council

David Abuol Lual Office Manager South Bor County Council

Kezekia Ruei Prot Commissioner South Bor County Council

Panchol Jongkuc Kur

SRRC Secretary South Bor County Council

Peter Bior Deng Elder South Bor County Council

Community Leaders, Anyidi

South Sudanese Community

Dr Richard Mulla Director South Sudanese Community Association (UK)

+44(0)207 6074292

Andrea Freeman Programme Co-ordinator

Sudan Peace Fund 254-2 578271 [email protected]

Martin O Okerruk Director General Sudan People’s Liberation Movement

+254-2 4349335

[email protected]

Abiol Naomi Youth Leader Sudanese community, Kakuma

Abraham Bol Gok Youth Leader Sudanese community, Kakuma

Ayen Mayor Youth Leader Sudanese community, Kakuma

Benjamin Lem Ayer Youth Leader Sudanese community, Kakuma

Collin Lakot Paul Female Youth Sudanese community,





78 of 84Supervisor Kakuma

Cornelius Oyat Wani Inspector of secondary schools

Sudanese community, Kakuma

Daniel Atem Mabiou UAM Sudanese community, Kakuma

Deng Mabil Mac UAM Sudanese community, Kakuma

Gabriel Thon Deputy Director for Schools, Elder


James Akot Miaken Youth Leader Sudanese community, Kakuma

Mr Mark Mayol Malueth

Deputy Director of Schools


Robert Apire Youth Leader Sudanese community, Kakuma

Santino Monybot Sudanese Community Chairman


Thon Kur Anyieth Youth Leader Sudanese community, Kakuma

Yarmum Gum Supervisor of IRC Education, Elder


Marv Koop UNDP, Khartoum [email protected] Lewis Co-ordinator, a.i.

Disaster, Post-Conflict and Safety Section

UN-Habitat +254-2 623826 [email protected]

Eric Verschuur Programme Management Officer

UN-Habitat +254 2 623213 [email protected]

John Hogan Human Settlements Officer – Training and Capacity Building Branch


Sean McCarthy Retired UN-Habitat (ex) [email protected] Sala-Ngarm Deputy

RepresentativeUNHCR Branch Office, Nairobi

+254-2 443028 [email protected]

Khalid Shah Programme Officer UNHCR Kakuma Sub-office

+873 382 281 230

[email protected]

Liv Feijen Protection Officer UNHCR Kakuma Sub-office

+873 382 281 230

[email protected]

C Chanda Head of Sub-office UNHCR Kakuma Sub-office

+873 382 281 230

[email protected]

Anoushiravan Daneshvar

Head, regional Technical Support Section, East, Horn of Africa and Great Lakes Region

UNHCR Regional Office, Nairobi

254-2 4222000 [email protected]

Ahmed B. Wurie Asso. Admin/Finance Officer

UNHCR, Kakuma +00 871 761 845 565

[email protected]

Jean-Francois Darcq OLS Liason Officer UNICEF +254-2 622957 [email protected] Rogge Senior IDP Advisor UN-OCHA, Geneva +41(0) 22

[email protected]

Nick Taylor Head of Office UN-OCHA, Nairobi +254 2 621045 [email protected] Maly Southern Sudan

Program OfficerUSAID Tel. [254 2]

862400 x [email protected]

Peter Mutua RPO UNICEF [email protected] Soita Program Manager Save the Children

Sweden, South BorChristian Muntgan Researcher MedAir [email protected]

















79 of 84

M.5 T.O.R.s

Part 1 – Kakuma, Northern Kenya

1-1 Describe GoK view of the medium to long-term future for Kakuma refugee camp. (timeframes 5, 10 and 20 years). Describe to what extent Kakuma will be a 'special case', remaining a permanent feature on the Turkana landscape. What is perceived as the long-term demand from the indigenous/local Turkana population for infrastructure resources existing in Kakuma? Is there a medium-term regional development plan for Turkana?

1-2 Discuss the options for a handover of facilities in Kakuma to the local and national Kenyan authorities. What measures will be necessary in addition to the handover of physical resources (e.g. equipment, human resources, management and information resources, timeframes, downsizing of operations, the definition(s) of acceptable end state/sustainable livelihood conditions for the remaining population and the site). Will there be a handover to other international developmental actors as well as GoK? What are the challenges and bottlenecks to such an operation?

1-3 Discuss and detail the mitigating measures necessary to return the local environment to a satisfactory condition in and around Kakuma Refugee Camp in order to enable a feasible exit strategy for external supporting agencies. Discuss such issues with the relevant Kenyan Authorities in Nairobi, the District Officer for Turkana in Kakuma and with HSO, UNHCR Kakuma.

1-4 Discuss with HSO HCR Kakuma the options for transporting refugees back to Sudan. Who will be the implementing partners? What allowance will be made for transporting personal belongings with families back to south Sudan? What will happen to larger moveable, reusable materials such as roofing, plastic sheeting etc?.

1-5 Discuss with HSO HCR Kakuma the options for the component parts of a pre-departure ‘package’ in the event of an HCR-led repatriation programme from Kakuma to south Sudan.

1-6 Discuss with the Sudanese community in Kakuma the options for the component parts of a pre-departure ‘package’ in the event of an HCR-led repatriation programme from Kakuma to south Sudan. Discuss the method of distribution.

1-7 Discuss with the Sudanese community in Kakuma the potential for discrete groups to head for urban centres in south Sudan rather than their traditional homelands. Groups to be consulted include the youth, unaccompanied minors (UAMs), the elderly, second-generation refugees, teachers and those currently in other forms of paid employment in the camp as well as the leadership.


80 of 841-8 Discuss with the Sudanese community in Kakuma what settlement and

livelihood conditions would have to be manifest in south Sudan for the Sudanese population in Kakuma to consider returning (including infrastructure such as roads, water, education, health and sanitation, access to markets, housing/shelter, employment, social networks, security and transportation).

1-9 How have Sudanese adapted to life in the camp – (eg the emergence of small businesses in K2 and K3) and what are their implications for a return to Sudan?.

1-10 What is the view of the Sudanese leadership in Kakuma concerning the status of Rumbek following a peace agreement? If Rumbek is to be the new capital, is this likely to be for a transitional period only?

1-11 Are there particular trends in the livelihood expectations concerning a return programme among discrete groups and categories within the Sudanese community? (age, ethnicity, class, geographical AOO, length of displacement/2nd generation refugees, former combatants, UAMs)

1-12 Gain an understanding of the priority of such criteria among the Sudanese community and quantify the extent to which the Sudanese expect external assistance to achieve the minimum conditions (described in 1-8) for return to south Sudan.

1-13 Describe the strength of the psychological 'pull' to return home assuming only minimal livelihood support can be provided.

1-14 Will the process of return of the Sudanese in Kakuma be spontaneous and widespread following a peace agreement or will it be a gradual process? Which groups are more likely to ‘wait and see’ than others?

1-15 What is the SPLM/A planning to do to encourage/facilitate return?

1-16 In developing the civil administration, what capacity building does the SPLM require?

1-17 What civil roles will the SPLA be seeking, and what is the planned process of de-mobilisation and reintegration?

1-18 How will cattle numbers be restored? If cattle numbers remain low, what is the extent of economic assistance required or what other economic strategies will the Sudanese adopt?

1-19 Are the trading and business links made in the camps likely to continue into the future or will these links be accepted as lost as part of the return process?

Part 2 Rumbek, south Sudan


81 of 842-1 Building upon the UN-H mission in 2000 (‘Integrated Regional Intervention

Framework for Human Settlements Rehabilitation and Institutional Capacity Building in south Sudan’), develop physical plans through a series of workshops with SPLM and existing local authority representatives within Rumbek for the expansion of Rumbek town to cope with an increased population.

2-2 Develop several physical plans based upon a number of assumptions primarily based upon differing populations and rates of expansion.

2-3 Quantify the resources required to implement such plans.

2-4 Identify the risks and potential for problems that may face the (rapid) urbanisation of Rumbek.

2-5 Suggest options for the phasing of such urban development planning.

Part 3 Anyidi, Bor County, south Sudan

3-1 Discuss with Sudanese returnees in Paluar the potential for discrete groups to head for urban centres in south Sudan rather than their traditional homelands. Groups to be consulted include the youth, unaccompanied minors (UAMs), the elderly, second-generation IDPs, teachers and those currently in other forms of paid employment as well as local leadership.

3-2 What might be the favoured component parts of an ‘IDP returnee package’? (cash, seeds, tools, starter shelter packs, pre-departure training and prep.) Is it desirable/possible to provide a tiered or differential set of return packages based upon perceived differences in need or categories of returnees? What might be the likely impact if refugees and IDP assistance is substantially different?

3-3 Identify the current settlement/livelihood conditions in Paluar, and Bor County more generally.

Part 4 Labone, south Sudan

4-1 Discuss with Sudanese IDPs in Labone the potential for discrete groups to head for urban centres in south Sudan rather than their traditional homelands. Groups to be consulted include the youth, unaccompanied minors (UAMs), the elderly, second-generation IDPs, teachers and those currently in other forms of paid employment as well as local leadership.

4-2 What might be the favoured component parts of an ‘IDP returnee package’? (cash, seeds, tools, starter shelter packs, pre-departure training and prep.) Is it desirable/possible to provide a tiered or differential set of return packages based upon perceived differences in need or categories of returnees? What might be the likely impact if refugees and IDP assistance is substantially different?

Part X General


82 of 84

X-1 Through consultation with Area Coordinator in Rumbek and other NGOs operating in south Sudan, discuss the potential for, and identify strategic locations for way stations and transit centers to be used by UNHCR to provide bases for protection monitoring and further material support to returning refugees. Define options for the functions of such facilities and suggest appropriate timeframes for closure.

X-2 What considerations must be made for physical planning to facilitate the return process itself? (phasing of transfers, ‘look and see’ programmes, creation of way stations & transit camps (if at all).

X-3 What are the timing considerations for a return process in terms of seasonal factors, such as rains, planting and cropping periods? There is a window of return before roads become difficult to negotiate. There are also issues regarding.

X-4 How can assistance be levered into real investment?


83 of 84

M.6 circulation list

Name Position Organisation Telephone EmailNick Southern Regional Manager,

Central/East Africa & Middle East

CARE +44 (0) 20 7934 9334

[email protected]

Debbie Shomberg CRSVincent Langdon-Morris

Asst. Country Representative

CRS 254-2 3748 022

[email protected]

Stephen McDowell HHFS Information Co-ordinator

FAO +254-2 2725359

[email protected]

Jason Matus Observer IGAD - [email protected] Muor Wel Manager Information Centre

Youth Programme, Rumbek

[email protected]

David Stone Environmental Livelihoods Specialist

LIVES Advisory Group/Consultant for UNHCR

+41 22 3664439

[email protected]

Lokiru Matendo Officer in charge LWF, Kakuma [email protected]

Cathy Benetti Information Officer Norwegian Refugee Council

+41(0)22 7990710

[email protected]

Martin O Okerruk Director General Sudan People’s Liberation Movement

+254-2 4349335

[email protected]

Dan Lewis Co-ordinator, a.i. Disaster, Post-Conflict and Safety Section

UN-Habitat +254-2 623826 [email protected]

Eric Verschuur Programme Management Officer


John Hogan Human Settlements Officer – Training and Capacity Building Branch


Sean McCarthy Retired UN-Habitat (ex) [email protected] Sala-Ngarm Deputy

RepresentativeUNHCR Branch Office, Nairobi

+254-2 443028 [email protected]

Anoushiravan Daneshvar

Head, regional Technical Support Section, East, Horn of Africa and Great Lakes Region

UNHCR Regional Office, Nairobi

254-2 4222000 [email protected]

Jean-Francois Darcq OLS Liason Officer UNICEF +254-2 622957 [email protected] Rogge Senior IDP Advisor UN-OCHA, Geneva +41(0) 22

[email protected]

Nick Taylor Head of Office UN-OCHA, Nairobi +254 2 621045 [email protected] Maly Southern Sudan

Program OfficerUSAID Tel. [254 2]

862400 x [email protected]

Peter Mutua RPO UNICEF [email protected] Muntgan Researcher MedAir [email protected] Koop UNDP, Khartoum [email protected] Chanda Head of Sub-office UNHCR Kakuma Sub-

office+873 382 281 230

[email protected]





















84 of 84

M.7 bibliography

UNICEF (2002) School Baseline Assessment Report Southern Sudan, with the Africa Educational Trust

UNHCR (2003) Briefing Note – Kakuma Refugee Camp (internal document)

CRS (2001a) Report on the workshop on reintegration and rehabilitation of returnees in Bor County organized by Jonglei Association for Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (Jarrad), April 27-28, 2001, Bor County (internal document)

IRC (2003) IRC Adult Education Program Profile May 2003 (Kakuma, internal document)

LWF (2002a) Kakuma Refugee Camp Baseline Survey July 2002

LWF (2002b) LWF/DWS Kenya/Sudan Programme 2002 Annual Report, Kenya.

SCF (1998) The Southern Sudan Vulnerability Study, The Save the Children Fund (UK) south Sudan Programme, Kenya.

SCF (2000) An introduction to the Food Economy Research in Southern Sudan 1994-2000

UNICEF (2001) Knowing the Pen – An Analysis of Girls’ Education in Southern Sudan

CRS (2001b) Quarterly Program Progress Report – Economic Rehabilitation Program, south Sudan (internal document)

UN-Habitat (2002) Re-integration and recovery of displaced persons in Sudan: A report of the Inter-agency Mission, 1-17 November 2002

UN-OCHA (2000) Integrated Regional Intervention Framework for Human Settlements Rehabilitation and Institutional Capacity Building in south Sudan – Report of the preliminary assessment mission, 17-21 September 2000

OUNRHCS (2003) Sudan Transition and Recovery Database (STARBASE) Report on Rumbek County – Greater Bahr El Ghazal Region


UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE - shelterproject.org -...

Documents

Transcript of UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE - shelterproject.org -...