UNIVERSITY OF
C AM B R I D G E
in collaboration with:
UN-HABITAT
shelterproject.org
D i s a s t e r Ma n a g em en t
Programme
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
jon@shelterproject.org. Jon is a livelihoods assessor and researcher,
and wrote Chapter I.
Pete Manfield
pete@shelterproject.org. 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.
2 of 84
Thanks also to:
-
Debbie Shomberg and the CRS staff in Brong for hosting project staff in south
Sudan
UNHCR for hosting project staff in Kakuma.
executive summary
a
7
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
3 of 84





A.1.2
The establishment of schools in south Sudan staffed by trained
teachers will be a strong pull-factor for displaced persons to return
home.
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.
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
4 of 84

Undertake Capacity building to support management and recordkeeping 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.
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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
5 of 84
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.
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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
6 of 84
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.
- 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 Sudanese 1. 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
7 of 84
contents/structure
B
A
contents/structure
b
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 2
A.1
COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT AND LIVELIHOOD CONDITIONS IN KAKUMA REFUGEE CAMP,
RUMBEK AND BOR COUNTY ........................................................................................................... 2
A2
OPTIONS FOR THE RETURN PROCESS AND RE-SETTLEMENT OF REFUGEES AND IDPS IN
RUMBEK AND SOUTH BOR COUNTY, SOUTH SUDAN ........................................................................ 4
A3
OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR EXIT AND HANDOVER TO THE KENYAN AUTHORITIES OF
FACILITIES AND RESOURCES IN KAKUMA REFUGEE CAMP ................................................................ 6
B
CONTENTS/STRUCTURE...................................................................................................... 7
C
TIME AND DATE .................................................................................................................... 9
D
WHO UNDERTOOK THE WORK ......................................................................................... 10
F
OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................... 12
G
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 13
INTERVIEWS/DISCUSSIONS........................................................................................................... 13
WORKGROUPS ........................................................................................................................... 13
LITERATURE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 13
OBSERVATION ............................................................................................................................ 13
QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................................................................................... 13
H
STANDARDS AND INDICATORS ........................................................................................ 14
I
COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT AND LIVELIHOOD CONDITIONS IN KAKUMA
REFUGEE CAMP, RUMBEK AND BOR COUNTY ...................................................................... 15
I.1
I.2
I.3
I.4
I.5
I.6
I.7
I.8
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 15
USING A LIVELIHOODS APPROACH ..................................................................................... 15
COMPARISON OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CAPITAL ............................................................... 16
COMPARISON OF HUMAN CAPITAL ..................................................................................... 19
COMPARISON OF NATURAL CAPITAL .................................................................................. 26
COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL CAPITAL.................................................................................. 29
COMPARISON OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL ................................................................................. 32
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 ................................................................................................................ 37
J.2
BACKGROUND AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................... 37
J.3
WHEN AND HOW WILL REFUGEES AND IDPS RETURN? ....................................................... 37
J.4
THREE SCENARIOS FOR THE RETURN OF REFUGEES .......................................................... 39
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 ....................................... 44
J.6
OPTIONS FOR PHYSICAL RESETTLEMENT IN SOUTH SUDAN ............................................... 45
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
8 of 84
K OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR EXIT AND HANDOVER TO THE KENYAN
AUTHORITIES OF FACILITIES AND RESOURCES IN KAKUMA REFUGEE CAMP ................. 62
K.1
K.2
K.3
K.4
K.5
K.6
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 63
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 63
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 63
ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................................................. 64
HANDOVER ..................................................................................................................... 64
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 67
L
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 69
M
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................... 71
M.1
POPULATION FIGURES ................................................................................................................... 71
M.2
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 73
M.3
DIARY/ITINERY ................................................................................................................................. 74
M.4
PERSONS MET OR CONTACTED BY TELEPHONE OR EMAIL ................................................... 76
M.5
T.O.R.S .............................................................................................................................................. 79
PART 1 – KAKUMA, NORTHERN KENYA ........................................................................................................... 79
PART 2
RUMBEK, SOUTH SUDAN ............................................................................................................... 80
PART 3
ANYIDI, BOR COUNTY, SOUTH SUDAN............................................................................................ 81
PART 4
LABONE, SOUTH SUDAN ................................................................................................................ 81
PART X
GENERAL ................................................................................................................................ 82
M.6
CIRCULATION LIST .......................................................................................................................... 83
M.7
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................ 84
Figures and tables
Figure 1 Children in primary education in south Sudan ................................................................................. 20
Figure 2 Trained and untrained teachers in south Sudan .............................................................................. 21
Figure 3 Cash Earning Activities in Kakuma (QDLS) ..................................................................................... 22
Figure 4 Types of skills possessed in Kakuma (QDLS) ................................................................................. 23
Figure 5 Businesses supported by Don Bosco .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 6 Kitchen garden allocation in Kakuma ............................................................................................... 27
Table 1 Socio economic groups of the Dinka and Jur Bel – 2000/2001 ........................................................ 28
Figure 7 Percent of population owning household items ................................................................................ 29
Table 2 Socio economic groups of the Dinka and Jur Bel – 2000/2001 ........................................................ 31
Table 3 Summary of main issues ................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 9 Administrative boundaries of Bor County ......................................................................................... 45
Figure 10 Existing settlement in Bor County .................................................................................................. 46
Figure 11 Swamplands in Bor County ............................................................................................................ 47
Figure 12 Expansion of areas prone to flooding to the east ........................................................................... 48
Figure 13 Desired dry lands to the east .......................................................................................................... 49
Figure 14 Settlement Strategy A – Resettlement integrated within existing settlement ................................. 50
Figure 15 Settlement Strategy B – Resettlement 60 KM to the East of existing settlement .......................... 51
Figure 16 Settlement Strategy C – Resettlement 20 KM to the East of existing settlement .......................... 53
Figure 17 Existing water points in Rumbek Town .......................................................................................... 56
Figure 18 The administrative boundary of the town extends in a six-mile radius........................................... 56
Figure 19 The grey areas indicate existing urbanisation in the town, which has occurred adjacent to the
roads ....................................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 20 The coloured blocks indicate some of the key zones in the town .................................................. 57
Figure 21 Potential site for refugee reception/dispersal centre ...................................................................... 58
Figure 22 Expanding areas of Rumbek .......................................................................................................... 59
Figure m1 Population of Kakuma by gender, age and ethnic origin – total = 82,200 ..................................... 71
Figure m2 Population of Rumbek County by Payam, 2000/2002 ................................................................... 72
Figure m3 Population of South Bor, 1999 ....................................................................................................... 72
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
9 of 84
time and date
C
time and date
c
7
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 June
Rumbek, Rumbek County, south Sudan: 21st – 27th June
Anyidi, Bor County, south Sudan: 27th – 1st July
A full mission itinery is available in Appendix M.6.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
10 of 84
D
who undertook
the work
d
who undertook the work
7
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 pete@shelterproject.org
Email address of Jon Fowler jon@shelterproject.org
URL of shelterproject.org web site www.shelterproject.org
Landline +44.1223. 33 17 16
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
11 of 84
source: institution/
person
E
source: institution/person
e
7
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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
12 of 84
objectives
F
objectives
f
7
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)
ii)
iii)
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
adding greater resolution to the link between displaced and non-displaced
livelihoods and transitional settlement policy
to scope opportunities for potential involvement of UN-Habitat DM in a postpeace Sudan
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
13 of 84
methodology
g
7
G
methodology
The data and information used in this report was gathered in the following ways:
Interviews/discussions
This 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.
Workgroups
In 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 analysis
Reports 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.
Observation
General 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.
Questionnaires
A ‘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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
14 of 84
standards and
indicators
H
standards and indicators
h
7
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)
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
15 of 84
settlement and
livelihoods
i
I
Comparison of settlement and livelihood 7
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 nondisplaced 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)
ii)
iii)
estimate the likelihood of actual return,
identify needs for humanitarian/developmental livelihood assistance
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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
16 of 84
effects 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
human capital
natural capital
Physical capital
Financial capital
Social capital
(inclusive of
‘political capital’)
Definition
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
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
stock of equipment, tools and infrastructure and other productive
resources owned by individuals and the community.
the financial resources available to people (savings, supplies of
credit)
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 survey
A ‘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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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
Kakuma
Traditional 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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
18 of 84
imports supported only very small projects and claimed that there was no other form of
taxation in Rumbek.
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.
Illustration 1 Rumbek prison
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 Bor
Social 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).
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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
Illustration 2 Primary school in South Bor
Enrolment
The 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
20 of 84
Drop-out rates
Primary 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
Children in primary education in South Sudan
70000
60000
Number
50000
40000
Boys
Girls
30000
20000
10000
0
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Grade
Source: UNICEF (2002)
Finishing studies
Most 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 expectations
There 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
21 of 84
Furthermore, 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 livelihoods
Although 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 training
Teacher 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
Trained
7%
Untrained
45%
In-service
training
48%
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 education
The 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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
22 of 84
and 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
Kakuma
Skill levels differed between the three areas, with more skills training offered in Kakuma
than elsewhere.
2
The Quick and Dirty Livelihoods Survey (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)
Cash earning activities in Kakuma
Brickmaking
3%
Selling ration
4%
Carpentry
Church
1%
3%
Grinding mill
1%
Hairdressing
1%
Tailoring
1%
Brewing
4%
NGO
34%
‘Business'/Trading
6%
Bicycle repair
10%
Shop/restaurant/
hotel
32%
NGO
Shop/restaurant/hotel
Bicycle repair
‘Business'/Trading
Brewing
Selling ration
Brickmaking
Church
Carpentry
Grinding mill
Hairdressing
Tailoring
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
23 of 84
3
This can be compared to the numbers of people that possess skills . 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)
Sport
1%
Masonry
1%
Computer
1%
Film Aid Dressmaking
1%
1%
Electrical w iring
1%
Gender promotion
1%
Agriculture
1%
Teaching
2%
Soap-making
1%
English
21%
Carpentry
2%
Community
rep/leadership
3%
Tailoring
4%
Nursing/Health
7%
Adult Education
7%
Counselling
11%
Business
Management
16%
Peace
Education/Conflict
resolution
18%
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
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)
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
24 of 84
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).
Overall, 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
Businesses supported by Don Bosco
Butchery
Video show places 1%
Barber salons
Makuti and building 1%
materials
1%
1%
Bicycle spare parts
shops and repair
shops
1%
Carpentry
Dry fish retailers
workshops 1%
1%
Second hand
clothing
2%
Grocery
5%
Shops
28%
Restaurants
8%
Sugar retailers
25%
Bicycle taxis
25%
Total number of groups: 374
Source: Don Bosco, Kakuma
Discussion with Sudanese traders
A 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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
25 of 84
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.
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 Bor
It 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
26 of 84
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.
Gender
Female-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:
Kakuma
Access 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 Bor
While 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
27 of 84
I.5.1
Kakuma
Kakuma 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
garden 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
Male owners
8%
Female owners
4%
No kitchen garden
44%
No kitchen garden, but
would like one
44%
Source: GTZ, Kakuma
I.5.2
Rumbek
Land 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
28 of 84
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
and 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 m 2 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 – 2000/2001
DINKA
Percentage of HH
Area cultivated in
Feddans
Expected harvest
(grains) kg
Expect harvest
(g/nuts) kg
Composition
Very poor
5-15%
1-2
Poor
15-25%
2-3
Middle
20-30%
3-4
Better off
40-50%
4-6
80-100
135-155
180-230
380-390
90
180
270
240
‘Magicians’, subchiefs, SPLM
personnel, traders,
fishermen
Middle
25-35%
3-5
Magician, chiefs,
traders.
Headmen, ordinary
civilians, widows,
soldiers, small-time
farmers
Very poor
5-15%
1
JUR BEL
Poor
Better off
Percentage of HH
15-20%
40-45%
Area cultivated in
1-3
5-10
Feddans
1 Feddan = 0.42 hectares
Source: 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
29 of 84
I.5.3
South Bor
Although 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”.
I.6
comparison of physical capital
I.6.1
Kakuma
Little 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
18
16
16
14
12
10
7.7
8
6
6
5.5
3.4
4
1.9
2
1.4
0
Radio
Bicycle
Chickens
Lamp
Ducks
Doves
Furniture
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
30 of 84
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
Iron 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 brickmakers, 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
Rumbek
There 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:



www.shelterproject.org
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.
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
31 of 84


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 – 2000/2001
DINKA
Percentage of HH
Cattle per HH
Milking cows
Sheep/goats per HH
Composition
Very poor
Poor
Middle
Better off
5-15%
15-25%
20-30%
40-50%
0-10
5-10
10-20
>30
0-2
1-2
2-4
>5
0-5
5-10
10-20
>25
Headmen, ordinary
Magicians, subMagician, chiefs,
civilians, widows,
chiefs, SPLM
traders.
soldiers, small-time
personnel, traders,
farmers
fishermen
JUR BEL
Very poor
Poor
Middle
Better off
Percentage of HH
5-15%
15-20%
25-35%
40-45%
Beehives owned
2-10
10-20
20-30
30-60
Sheep/goats
The Jur community have some livestock of which sheep/goats are the majority (they are
primarily agriculturalists).
1 Feddan = 0.42 hectares
Source: 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 Bor
As 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




www.shelterproject.org
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
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
32 of 84
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
Kakuma
Kakuma 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.
The 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
Rumbek
Rumbek 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.
Illustration 3 Kakuma market
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 Bor
South 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
33 of 84
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.
A summary of the main issues is presented in table 3:
Table 3 Summary of main issues
IDPs in Labone
Refugees in
Issue
Kakuma
Shelter
conditions
Bush pole and
grass thatch
tukuls
livelihoods
Reliant on food
distributions,
some farming,
some pastoral
activities,
limited trading
Settlement
tradition
Transitory due
to poor security
Education
Most have had
access to
primary
education
Health
Limited access
to primary
health care
Adobe and GI
sheet roof
houses/ bush
pole/adobe
walling and
plastic sheeting
makuti roofing
Reliant on food
distributions, no
farming, limited
market gardens,
limited trade
and NGO
employment
Sedentary,
dense marketbased camps
Most have had
access to
primary and
secondary
education
Free access to
primary health
care and
hospitals
Non-displaced
in Rumbek town
and Bor county
Bush pole and
grass thatch
tukuls
Challenges
Largely
pastoral, small
scale
agricultural
activities
What livelihood assistance
will be afforded to those
who have no background in
agricultural or pastoral
activities?
Transitory due
to pastoral
activities
Where is ‘home’? How will
security be afforded to
those who are transitory for
economic reasons?
Location of education
facilities likely to affect
pattern of settlement
Limited access
to primary
education
Very limited
access to
primary health
care
Differing shelter conditions
and building skills may
produce differing
expectations for shelter
assistance.
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
security
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
34 of 84
Security 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 dividend
How 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.
administration
Councils could operate more effectively if they had more resources, particularly for recordkeeping 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
Cultural 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 influence
There 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.
gender
Refugee 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 return
The 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
35 of 84
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.
South 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 return
resumption of traditional livelihoods
Certain 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 land
The 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, fixedpoint services are encouraging more permanent settlement based on farming rather than
herding.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
36 of 84
shelter resources in Kakuma
There 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 allocation
The 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 return
agricultural processing
There 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.
infrastructure
Physical 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 return
currency
The 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 economy
Without 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
37 of 84
return process
j
7
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:



J.2
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
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?
Whilst 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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
38 of 84
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
4
their own means to return home and provide assistance thereafter . 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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
‘Humanitarian’ assistance phase coordinated by UNHCR RO Nairobi
Refugees
40 of 84 leave
Kakuma by truck
Figure 8 Three options
for the return of refugees
to South Sudan
Way station 1
- food and water provided
- protection monitoring
- accommodation for night
Way station X
- food and water provided
- protection monitoring
- accommodation for night
scenario A
Dispersal Station
-food and water provided
- protection monitoring
-accommodation for night
- liaison with SPLM for onward
travel to sites with relatives
scenario B
scenario C
Dispersal Station
-food and water provided
- protection monitoring
-accommodation for night
- liaison with SPLM for onward
travel to new settlement sites
Home of relatives
- HCR monitor visits home to
ensure security of returnees
- food distribution
- construction of transitional
shelter
Durable resettlement coordinated by UNDP Khartoum
handover phase
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
new settlement site
- liaison with SPLM at new site to
allocate land
- durable shelter and livelihood
support from developmental
agencies
Advantages
- social and livelihood support
network available from
relatives.
- existing education and health
services can be augmented to
serve displaced and nondisplaced concurrently
- subsequent relocation can be
supported later with time for
planning and preparation.
Advantages
- Provides SPLM and Intl.
community with more time to
determine locations for durable
resettlement and supporting
infrastructure, which can be
better tuned to requirements of
returnees.
- Protection monitoring and
delivery of relief is facilitated in
grouped settlement in initial
phases.
Advantages
- No waste of resources at sites
of temporary occupation
- Elimination of potential for aiddependent camps
Disadvantages
- High degree of pre-planning and
coordination required between
HCR, SPLM, and developmental
actors to ascertain returnee and
Disadvantages
authority preferences in order to
Disadvantages
- Humanitarian distributions
ensure sustainability of this
and protection monitoring is
- Returnees may not leave the
settlement strategy.
more involved and costly for
‘dispersal stations’, which
- New sites for settlement may
dispersed settlements
become camps reliant on relief.
require significant infrastructure
- relatives who receive
These are notoriously difficult to
investment prior to a return effort.
returnees may become quickly
close (ref. HCR handbook, UNCT
- Physically differentiated
overloaded by non-displaced
Khartoum 2002).
‘Refugee’ or ‘IDP’ (re)settlements
population (e.g. 1999),
- Dispersal stations may be used
may cause apparent disparity
especially if there is flood or
to screen returnees for political
between resource allocations,
drought
reasons by new administration.
which may be further
- this strategy likely to be
compounded by bi-lateral aid
opposed by SPLM, especially
initiatives.
if it is only option considered
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
41 of 84
J.4.1
Scenario A
Step 1
Refugee 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 2
Returnees 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 3
Returnees 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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
42 of 84
authorities and supporting agencies to find suitable sites, agree upon land tenure issues
and 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 1
All 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 2
Once 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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
43 of 84
are occupied for anything other than a few days may be used to screen returnees for
political reasons by the new administration.
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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
Introduction
Many 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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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 nondisplaced, 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
52 of 84
the existing road from Bor to Malakal to serve the new settlements, and substantial
investment 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
54 of 84
J.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 nondisplaced 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 1020 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
55 of 84
J.6.3
Case Study Two - Rumbek
Introduction
Rumbek 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
57 of 84
Figure 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
Airstrip
SPLM/Govt sites
UN/NGO compounds
market
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
58 of 84
Figure 21 Potential site for refugee reception/dispersal centre
Potential 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
60 of 84
J.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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
61 of 84
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. 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
62 of 84
Kakuma exit and
handover
k
K
Options and considerations for exit and 7handover
to the Kenyan Authorities of facilities and
resources in Kakuma Refugee Camp
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
64 of 84
becomes 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
65 of 84
K.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 longterm capacity. External developmental actors are likely to be required to support the
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
66 of 84
transition from management by humanitarian agencies to national authorities, particularly
concerning training of teachers.
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
67 of 84
K.5.5
Environment
There 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
5
services will continue to run after the departure of the Sudanese . 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
5
pers comm. Representative, Jesuit Relief Services, Lodwar.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
68 of 84
(such as the church organisations) to address the need for such a demand for a suitably
skilled 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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
69 of 84
recommendations
l
L
recommendations
L.1
General recommendations from livelihoods/settlement
findings
7
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





www.shelterproject.org
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 recordkeeping 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.
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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 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.
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.
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
71 of 84
m
annexes
M
annexes
7
The following annexes are included:
M.1
Population figures
M.2
Acronyms/abbreviations
M.3
Diary/itinery
M.4
T.O.R.
M.5
Persons met/contacted by telephone
M.6
Circulation list
M.7
Bibliography
M.1
population figures
Figure m1 Population of Kakuma by gender, age and ethnic origin – total = 82,200
Kakuma population by age
Kakuma population by gender
Adults
26%
Women
41%
Children
0-17
52%
Men
59%
Children
18-25
22%
Kakuma population by ethnic origin
Ethiopian
3%
Others
2%
Somali
24%
Sudanese
71%
Source: LWF (2002a)
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
72 of 84
Figure m2 Population of Rumbek County by Payam, 2000/2002
Rumbek county population
350,000
319,963
288,359
300,000
Population
250,000
200,000
Population (2002 WHO
NID)
150,000
100,000
64,980
91,914
50,248
65,129
64,422
41,100
57,547
63,283
59,872
49,827
50,000
0
Rumbek
Akot
Pakam/Maper
Payam Pacong
Malek
Total
Population (2000 WFP
ANA)
Source: OUNRHCS (2003)
Figure m3 Population of South Bor, 1999
120000
95,506
100000
Population
80000
53907
49,254
60000
40000
28,302
Female
Male
25949
17,950
20000
41599
18173
9785
23305
10129
8165
Anyidi/Kolnyang
Makwac payam
0
Athooc Payam
Total
Payam
Source: CRS 2001a
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
73 of 84
M.2
OUNRHCS
STARBASE
CRS
GoS
SPLM
SPLA
QDLS
LWFBS
IGA
www.shelterproject.org
acronyms/abbreviations
The Office of the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the
Sudan
Sudan Transition and Recovery Database
Catholic Relief Services
Government of Sudan
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement
Sudan People’s Liberation Army
‘Quick and Dirty’ Livelihoods Survey
LWF Baseline Survey
Income Generation Activities
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
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
8th June
9th June
Location
Nairobi
Nairobi
10th June
Nairobi
11th June
Nairobi
12th June
Kakuma
13th June
Kakuma
14th June
15th June
16th June
Kakuma
Kakuma
Kakuma
17th June
Kakuma
18th June
Kakuma
19th June
Kakuma/Loki
20th June
21st June
22nd June
23rd June
Lokichoggio
Loki/Rumbek
Rumbek
Rumbek
24th June
Rumbek
25th June
Rumbek
26th June
Rumbek
27th June
Rumbek/Anyidi
28th June
Anyidi
29th June
Anyidi
www.shelterproject.org
Activities
Arrival in Nairobi. Met with Chris Hutton, UN-Habitat, for informal briefing.
Meeting with Dan Lewis, UN-Habitat.
Meeting with Eric Verschuur, UN-Habitat.
Meeting with Nick Taylor, UN/OCHA, and Jean-Francois Darcq, UNICEF/OLS.
Meeting with Ted Maly, USAID.
Meeting with Arun Salu-Ngarm, UNHCR.
Meeting with Nick Sutherland, CARE.
Meeting with Harold Weepner and Steve MacDowell, FAO.
Meeting with Anoushiravan Daneshvar, UNHCR and Arun Salu-Ngarm, UNHCR.
Fly to Kakuma from Nairobi.
Welcomed by Mr. Chanda, Head of Sub Office, UNHCR.
Meeting with World Vision.
Meeting with GTZ.
Meeting with World Vision.
Meeting with Evangeline Kamau, Community Services, LWF.
Try to arrange meetings with Turkana District Commissioner.
Meeting with Sudanese Community Leaders.
Break
Meeting with Eunice Kimaliro, Education, LWF.
Meeting with Youth Leaders and George Chemkang, LWF.
Informal meeting with JRS.
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.
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.
Meeting with Sudanese traders/businessmen.
Meeting with GTZ.
Collect livelihood surveys.
Travel to Lokichoggio.
Meeting with CRS.
1-day security training workshop.
Meeting with Peter Mutua, UNICEF.
Meeting with Commissioner of Rumbek.
Meeting with Rumbek town council.
Meeting with Diakonie.
Meeting with UNICEF.
Meeting with Headmaster, Rumbek High School.
Meeting with pupils, Rumbek High School.
Meetings with Oxfam.
Meeting with Taxation Officer.
Meeting with CRS.
Meeting with Diocese of Rumbek.
Meeting with Jason Matus, IGAD.
Meeting with Women’s Development Group.
Meeting with Youth Information Project.
Travel to Anyidi.
Welcomed by Maker Lual Kuol, CRS.
Meeting with South Bor County District Commissioner.
Meeting with MedAir, Padak.
Meeting with community representatives, Anyidi.
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
75 of 84
30th June
Anyidi
1st July
Anyidi/Loki
2nd July
Loki/Nairobi
3rd July
4th July
5th July
6th July
7th July
Nairobi
Nairobi
Nairobi
Nairobi
Nairobi
8th July
9th July
10th July
11th July
Nairobi
Nairobi
Nairobi
Nairobi
www.shelterproject.org
Meeting with primary school teachers, Anyidi.
Meeting with Henry Soita, Save the Children Sweden.
Meeting with Maker Lual Kuol, CRS.
Travel to Lokichoggio.
Meeting with MedAir.
Travel to Nairobi.
Write-up of preliminary findings.
Meeting with Vincent Chordi, UNHCR Logistics RO Nairobi.
Write-up of preliminary findings.
Break.
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.
Report writing.
Report writing.
Report writing.
Meeting with Chris Hutton, UN-Habitat and Dan Lewis, UN-Habitat (presentation of
findings).
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
76 of 84
M.4
Name
Thomas Agou Kui
Soloma Angiel
Nick Southern
Kakutu Musombuia
Debbie Shomberg
Vincent LangdonMorris
Bihor
Ullie
Father Salvatori and
colleagues
Mathieu Balole
Harold Weepener
Stephen McDowell
Siyad Shide Samatar
Jason Matus
Susan Page
Maluak Muor Wel
persons met or contacted by telephone or email
Position
Child Development
Officer
Secretary
Regional Manager,
Central/East Africa &
Middle East
Youth Leader
Asst. Country
Representative
Compound Manager
Field Co-ordinator
Organisation
?? KAKUMA
Telephone
Email
+44 (0) 20
7934 9334
southern@ciuk.org
254-2 3748
022
vim@crssudan.org
+254-2
2725440
+254-2
2725359
+254-2 573228
hweepeneer@faonairobi.or.ke
IGAD
IGAD
Information Centre
Youth Programme,
Rumbek
Joint Military
Commission, Nuba
Mountains
Kakuma Refugee Camp
Secondary School
Kakuma Refugee Camp
Secondary School
LIVES Advisory
Group/Consultant for
UNHCR
LWF, Kakuma
254-2 719337
jmatus@africaonline.co.ke
sdpage@hotmail.com
luakmuorwel@hotmail.com
254 398 32242
Lo.loki@jmc.nu
+41 22
3664439
rds@iprolink.ch
LWF, Kakuma
254-2 577777
Bahr
El
Ghazal
Women’s Development
Committee (BWDC)
CARE
Congolese community,
Kakuma
CRS
CRS
Diakone, Rumbek
Diakone, Rumbek
Diocese of Rumbek
??
GIS Specialist
Don Bosco
FAO
HHFS Information
Co-ordinator
Project Field Coordinator
Observer
Legal expert
Manager
FAO
GTZ, Kakuma
Joseph Mc Cartan
Liason Officer,
Lokichoggio
Aquilla Kelei Madol
School deputy
Augostino Loro
Headmaster
David Stone
Environmental
Livelihoods Specialist
Eunice Kimaliro
George Chemkang
Deputy Education Coordinator
Community Service &
Development Coordinator
Youth Officer
Lokiru Matendo
Officer in charge
LWF, Kakuma
Lucy Githaiga
LWF, Kakuma
William Tembu
Human Rights and
Gender Officer
Education Officer
Peter ___
Co-ordinator
Cathy Benetti
Information Officer
Peter Matua
Ashford Gichohi
David Deng Agok
RPO
Food Security Officer
Acting County
Education Officer
Taxation Officer
Commissioner
Med-Air, Padak, Bor
County
Norwegian Refugee
Council
OLS/UNICEF
Oxfam, Rumbek
Rumbek administration
Evangeline Kamau
Moses Malkul
Paul Macuai Malok
www.shelterproject.org
LWF, Kakuma
smcdowell@faonairobi.or.ke
lwfkakuma@field.lwfkenya.org
Evangelinekamau@field.lwfkenya.org
lwfkakuma@field.lwfkenya.org
lwfkakuma@field.lwfkenya.org
lwfkakuma@field.lwfkenya.org
lwfkakuma@field.lwfkenya.org
LWF, Kakuma
+41(0)22
7990710
Cathy.benetti@nrc.ch
Rumbek administration
Rumbek administration
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
77 of 84
Chol Tong Mayay
Abinico Maker
(Deputy ED Finance)
Abraham Majak
Gum (Deputy ED
Lands)
Alfred Maaing
(Lands Dept)
Barnaba Makuac
Masoc (Water and
Sanitation)
Commander Deng
Headmaster
Paul Ater Riak
(Deputy ED Admin)
William Wek (Survey
Engineer)
Abraham Deng Kuot
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
SPLA
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Civil engineer
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Town Mayor
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
South Bor County
Council
South Bor County
Council
South Bor County
Council
South Bor County
Council
South Bor County
Council
South Bor County
Council
South Bor County
Council
South Bor County
Council
South Sudanese
Community
South Sudanese
Community Association
(UK)
Sudan Peace Fund
Survey
Agot Maaul Maduk
Coordinator
SCF/SBC
Radio operator
Ayii Awan Aduot
Finance Officer
Bullen Ayuen Mabtor
Council Member
David Abuol Lual
Office Manager
Kezekia Ruei Prot
Commissioner
Panchol Jongkuc
Kur
Peter Bior Deng
SRRC Secretary
Community Leaders,
Anyidi
Dr Richard Mulla
Andrea Freeman
Elder
Director
Martin O Okerruk
Programme Coordinator
Director General
Abiol Naomi
Youth Leader
Abraham Bol Gok
Youth Leader
Ayen Mayor
Youth Leader
Benjamin Lem Ayer
Youth Leader
www.shelterproject.org
Cholmayay68@hotmail.com
or cholmaya69@hotmail.com
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Rumbek Town Planning
committee
Dut Mayen Wol
(Health)
Elijah Malok (SRRC)
Gabriel Anyar Majut
Agok (Secretary)
Kuc John Akot (ED
Judiciary)
Manesio Mayen
(Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries)
Mater Mayoeb
Manyel (Civil
Engineer)
Mubor Ohawo Mubor
Rumbek High School
Sudan People’s
Liberation Movement
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
+44(0)207
6074292
254-2 578271
andrea@pactke.org
+254-2
4349335
splm@iconnect.co.ke
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
78 of 84
Collin Lakot Paul
Daniel Atem Mabiou
Female Youth
Supervisor
Inspector of
secondary schools
UAM
Deng Mabil Mac
UAM
Gabriel Thon
James Akot Miaken
Deputy Director for
Schools, Elder
Youth Leader
Mr Mark Mayol
Malueth
Robert Apire
Deputy Director of
Schools
Youth Leader
Santino Monybot
Sudanese
Community Chairman
Youth Leader
Cornelius Oyat Wani
Thon Kur Anyieth
Yarmum Gum
Marv Koop
Dan Lewis
Supervisor of IRC
Education, Elder
Khalid Shah
Co-ordinator, a.i.
Disaster, PostConflict and Safety
Section
Programme
Management Officer
Human Settlements
Officer – Training and
Capacity Building
Branch
Retired
Deputy
Representative
Programme Officer
Liv Feijen
Protection Officer
C Chanda
Head of Sub-office
Anoushiravan
Daneshvar
Head, regional
Technical Support
Section, East, Horn of
Africa and Great
Lakes Region
Asso. Admin/Finance
Officer
OLS Liason Officer
Senior IDP Advisor
Eric Verschuur
John Hogan
Sean McCarthy
Arun Sala-Ngarm
Ahmed B. Wurie
Jean-Francois Darcq
John Rogge
Nick Taylor
Ted Maly
Peter Mutua
Henry Soita
Head of Office
Southern Sudan
Program Officer
RPO
Program Manager
Christian Muntgan
Researcher
www.shelterproject.org
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
Sudanese community,
Kakuma
UNDP, Khartoum
UN-Habitat
+254-2 623826
marv.koop@undp.org
Dan.lewis@unhabitat.org
UN-Habitat
+254 2 623213
Eric.verschuur@unchs.org
UN-Habitat
+254 2 3185
John.Hogan@unhabitat.org
+254-2 443028
paragon499@hotmail.com
salangaa@unhcr.ch
UN-Habitat (ex)
UNHCR Branch Office,
Nairobi
UNHCR Kakuma Suboffice
UNHCR Kakuma Suboffice
UNHCR Kakuma Suboffice
UNHCR Regional
Office, Nairobi
UNHCR, Kakuma
UNICEF
UN-OCHA, Geneva
UN-OCHA, Nairobi
USAID
+873 382 281
230
+873 382 281
230
+873 382 281
230
254-2 4222000
kenka@unhcr.ch
+00 871 761
845 565
+254-2 622957
+41(0) 22
9172289
+254 2 621045
Tel. [254 2]
862400 x 2719
kenka@unhcr.ch
UNICEF
Save the Children
Sweden, South Bor
MedAir
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
kenka@unhcr.ch
kenka@unhcr.ch
daneshva@unhcr.ch
jdarcq@unicef.org
rogge@un.org
taylorn@un.org
tmaly@usaid.gov
pmutua@unicef.org
research@medairk.org
info@shelterproject.org
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.
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
80 of 84
1-8
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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
81 of 84
2-1
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?
Identify the current settlement/livelihood conditions in Paluar, and Bor
County more generally.
3-3
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?
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
82 of 84
Part X
General
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?
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org
83 of 84
M.6
Name
Nick Southern
Debbie Shomberg
Vincent LangdonMorris
Stephen McDowell
Jason Matus
Maluak Muor Wel
circulation list
Position
Regional Manager,
Central/East Africa &
Middle East
Asst. Country
Representative
HHFS Information
Co-ordinator
Observer
Manager
David Stone
Environmental
Livelihoods Specialist
Lokiru Matendo
Officer in charge
Cathy Benetti
Information Officer
Martin O Okerruk
Director General
Dan Lewis
Co-ordinator, a.i.
Disaster, PostConflict and Safety
Section
Programme
Management Officer
Human Settlements
Officer – Training and
Capacity Building
Branch
Retired
Deputy
Representative
Head, regional
Technical Support
Section, East, Horn of
Africa and Great
Lakes Region
OLS Liason Officer
Senior IDP Advisor
Eric Verschuur
John Hogan
Sean McCarthy
Arun Sala-Ngarm
Anoushiravan
Daneshvar
Jean-Francois Darcq
John Rogge
Nick Taylor
Ted Maly
Peter Mutua
Christian Muntgan
Marv Koop
C Chanda
www.shelterproject.org
Head of Office
Southern Sudan
Program Officer
RPO
Researcher
Head of Sub-office
Organisation
CARE
CRS
CRS
FAO
IGAD
Information Centre
Youth Programme,
Rumbek
LIVES Advisory
Group/Consultant for
UNHCR
LWF, Kakuma
Telephone
+44 (0) 20
7934 9334
Email
southern@ciuk.org
254-2 3748
022
+254-2
2725359
-
vim@crssudan.org
+41 22
3664439
rds@iprolink.ch
smcdowell@faonairobi.or.ke
jmatus@africaonline.co.ke
luakmuorwel@hotmail.com
lwfkakuma@field.lwfkenya.org
Cathy.benetti@nrc.ch
Norwegian Refugee
Council
Sudan People’s
Liberation Movement
UN-Habitat
+41(0)22
7990710
+254-2
4349335
+254-2 623826
UN-Habitat
+254 2 623213
Eric.verschuur@unchs.org
UN-Habitat
+254 2 3185
John.Hogan@unhabitat.org
+254-2 443028
paragon499@hotmail.com
salangaa@unhcr.ch
254-2 4222000
daneshva@unhcr.ch
+254-2 622957
+41(0) 22
9172289
+254 2 621045
Tel. [254 2]
862400 x 2719
jdarcq@unicef.org
rogge@un.org
UN-Habitat (ex)
UNHCR Branch Office,
Nairobi
UNHCR Regional
Office, Nairobi
UNICEF
UN-OCHA, Geneva
UN-OCHA, Nairobi
USAID
UNICEF
MedAir
UNDP, Khartoum
UNHCR Kakuma Suboffice
+873 382 281
230
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
splm@iconnect.co.ke
Dan.lewis@unhabitat.org
taylorn@un.org
tmaly@usaid.gov
pmutua@unicef.org
research@medairk.org
marv.koop@undp.org
kenka@unhcr.ch
info@shelterproject.org
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
www.shelterproject.org
associated with the university of cambridge for research projects
info@shelterproject.org