ACF Karamoja FS Assessment Report Final

Food Security & Livelihoods Assessment

Kaabong & Moroto, Karamoja

August – September 2008

September 2008

ACF Karamoja Assessment - 2 - August-September 2008

CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 9 2. OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 11

2.1 Location ................................................................................. 11 2.2 Data Collection Methods .............................................................. 12 2.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................ 13

3. ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 13 3.1 Livelihood Systems ..................................................................... 13 3.2 Livestock Production .................................................................. 16 3.3 Crop Production ........................................................................ 19 3.4 Markets .................................................................................. 21 3.5 Wealth Groups .......................................................................... 23 3.6 Changes in Household Food Sources ................................................ 24 3.7 Changes in Household Income Sources ............................................. 25 3.8 Changes in Household Expenditure .................................................. 26 3.9 Changes in Household Coping Strategies ........................................... 27

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 29 APPENDIX FIGURES Figure 1. Karamoja Map and ACF Programme Areas ................................................ 9 Figure 2. Karamoja Ethnic Groupings ................................................................ 10 Figure 3. Assessment Locations ....................................................................... 12 Figure 4. Livelihood Zones of Uganda ................................................................ 13 Figure 5. Uganda Seasonality ......................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Land Tenure Terminology .................................................................. 16 Figure 7. Hazard Ranking .............................................................................. 16 Figure 8. Diseases Threatening Livestock Production ............................................. 18 Figure 9. Herd Migration Dynamics ................................................................... 18 Figure 10. Threats to Agricultural Production ...................................................... 20 Figure 11. Pests Threatening Agricultural Production ............................................ 20 Figure 12. Average Retail Prices of Commodities .................................................. 21 Figure 13. Average Retail Prices of Animal Products .............................................. 21 Figure 14. Average Retail Prices of Livestock ...................................................... 22 Figure 15. Reasons for Price Fluctuations ........................................................... 23 Figure 16. Market Access .............................................................................. 23 Figure 17. Wealth Group Breakdown ................................................................. 24 Figure 18. Changes in Food Sources by Wealth Group ............................................ 24 Figure 19. Changes in Income Sources by Wealth Group ......................................... 25 Figure 20. Changes in Expenditure by Wealth Group .............................................. 27 Figure 21. Changes in Coping Strategies by Wealth Group ....................................... 28


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Karamoja region is located in the Northeast corner of Uganda and administratively divided into five districts: Abim, Kaabong, Kotido, Moroto, and Nakapiripirit. Karamoja lies roughly between 1-40 latitude and 33-350 longitude, and covers an area of approximately 30,000 square kilometres. It is bordered in the East by Turkana and West Pokot districts of Kenya and in the North by Sudan. The total population of the region is estimated at around one million, which constitutes roughly 4% of the total Uganda population.1 Karamoja is the least populated area of Uganda, with only 35 people per square kilometre. The region is classified as semi-arid by Ugandan standards, and the high variability in temporal and spatial distribution of rain is the determining factor that influences livelihood strategies. Agro-pastoralism is the dominant livelihood system of the region. The livestock production system integrates seasonal movement of herds between wet and dry season grazing lands. Cereals such as sorghum, millet and maize are also cultivated during the wet season and contribute to the household production and economy. Due to its inherent risk minimisation, agro-pastoralism is an appropriate livelihood system in semi-arid lands, particularly livestock which are more resilient to seasonal inconsistencies than crops. Traditionally, livestock raiding with small handheld weapons like spears and sticks was practiced between (and usually not among) different clans for socioeconomic reasons such as asset creation, dowry, or expression of manhood. Raiding was sanctioned by elders and the intensity, frequency, and fatality were limited. The practice has however changed shape in the recent past and today is among the main reasons for disrupted household livelihoods. The proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW) into the area from neighbouring Sudan, Kenya, and to a lesser extent Ethiopia and Somalia has fuelled the conflict.2 Armed Karamojong repeatedly raided these regions and planted the seed for today’s mistrust and animosity between these different ethnic groups. All human development indices show that Karamoja is one of the least developed parts of the country. Socioeconomic infrastructure and services such as schools, health centres, potable drinking water, roads, and production, processing, and marketing facilities are weak. Approximately 82% of the Karamoja population lives in poverty (defined as less than US$1/day), compared to the national average of 31%; global acute malnutrition (GAM) is 11% versus a national average of 6%.3 Many sources indicate historical marginalisation, misguided pastoral policies, and a lack of development programmes as the major causes of the region’s tenacious poverty and conflict. A number of humanitarian and development actors are implementing programmes in nutrition, food security, water and sanitation, and relief distribution; the World Food Programme (WFP) is distributing food aid for an estimated 700,000 people considered highly food insecure (of the roughly one million people in the region). ACF was first operational in Karamoja during the severe drought and emergency response of 1980-1983. Following a needs assessment conducted in late 2007, ACF committed itself to continue feeding programmes formerly established by MSF Spain during their emergency response. Food security and livelihood (FSL) programming is also envisaged for 2009 to complement the core nutrition work in order to address underlying factors of malnutrition in Karamoja. Hence, a food security and livelihoods (FSL) assessment was initiated to define FSL priorities and provide guidance for subsequent responses. A total of thirteen sub-counties were assessed by ACF in Kaabong and Moroto districts within a two week period in August 2008. The assessment primarily focused on the status of household food security and livelihoods, with supplementary but limited data collection on nutrition, water, sanitation, and hygiene4 in Kaabong and Moroto districts of Karamoja. This resulting report attempts to elaborate shifts in household food and income sources, coping strategies, performance of crop and livestock production. 1 OCHA-OPM (Office of the Prime Minister) Joint Fact sheet on Karamoja: Humanitarian and Development Realities in the Region, 18 April 2008. 2 Mkutu (2008) Guns and Governance in the Rift Valley: pastoralist conflict and small arms. Indiana University Press. 3 The statistics in this paragraph are from UNOCHA (OPM) 2008, op cit. 4 Internal analysis of nutrition, water, sanitation, and hygiene data for which WASH findings are summarised in the Appendices.


Primary and secondary data were collected at district, community, and household (wealth group) levels. Focus group discussions with community elders were conducted in two stages, first to establish specific wealth group criteria for households. Secondly, in-depth discussions were conducted regarding the various community based aspects, for example land tenure system, adaptive strategies, challenges and opportunities of different wealth groups, and priority areas of interventions. A total 190 household representative interviews were conducted using structured questionnaires. The interviews achieved fair representations of gender and age. Key informant interviews were conducted with officials from district and sub-county administrations, district agriculture, livestock, and fishery departments, staff of different NGOs and agro-pastoral civil society groups of Karamoja. In total 15 key informant interviews were conducted using checklists and semi-structured questionnaires. An additional 40 interviews were conducted with traders (both retailers and wholesalers), and livestock markets in Kaabong and Moroto districts were visited. Secondary information collected and reviewed includes district agriculture and fishery department reports, NGO and UN agency reports, and an array of published studies (footnoted herein). Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. The household economy approach (HEA) and sustainable livelihood framework5 were considered to asses the livelihoods context and identify linkages among different variables. To analyse shifts in food sources, income, expenditure, and coping strategies comparison was made between the present and the same time during a ‘normal’ year. In terms of crop production, 2005 was considered a normal year due to average rain and production levels. Therefore the anticipated 2008 crop harvest was compared with the 2005 harvest. However, livelihood effects of the 2005 harvest on households do not begin to manifest until the end of 2005 and into the rest 2006. For this reason 2006 was taken as the index year to compare household food, income, expenditure, and coping strategies. KEY FINDINGS Agro-pastoral Production

> The Karamojong maintain a mixed economy of crop cultivation, mainly sorghum and herding. However, the financial base of the economy is cattle. Cattle are primarily used as a repository of wealth due to their high liquidity and natural expansion through reproduction. Ownership is individual, although households operate as an enterprise managing composite herds.

> Simple agricultural tools such as hoes, machetes, and in some cases ox ploughs are used in the production process. Utilisation of modern farm inputs such as fertilisers, pesticides, and hybrid seeds is virtually absent.

> Reduced crop production and limited livelihood diversity force poorer households to depend more heavily on market exchanges of cash or labour, with increasing proportions of their expenditure prioritised for food compared with the index year and compared with middle and better-off households in the same period.

> Widespread insecurity, measures taken by the government to control it, and high disease prevalence threaten the main household food and income sources in Karamoja. This exacerbates household food insecurity in an otherwise viable – albeit challenging – climate for livestock production.

> Seasonal shortages of water and pasture reduce livestock production and encourage disease. This is further exacerbated by the forced cordoning of animals in kraals and the increased distance of pasture and water ressources. Close proximity of kraals is enforcing transmission of diseases across herds and animals. Combined, these factors all diminish livestock production and weaken household access to production (e.g. milk, meat, etc) and general livelihood strategies.

5 Dfid 1996, The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework


Household income and food sources

> The distribution of household income sources shows that all household groups normally rely to varying degrees on their own livestock and crop production, which combined provides them with approximately 60% of their household income. At current, additional activities are used to diversify and thereby increase income at a time when livestock and agricultural production are diminished.

> Limited income sources, combined with the currently high prices for staple foods has strained purchasing power and limited household access to food, further contributing to their vulnerability to food insecurity. Weak purchasing power will, in addition to creating food insecurity, limit household expenditure on basic services like healthcare and education.

> Poorer households (98%) tend to consume 1 to 2 meals per day while those in the middle range tend to consume 3 meals per day (88%).

> Children are fed at the same time as the rest of the family with 2 to 3 meals (74%) per day.

> If 2008 is as severe a year as popular perception makes it, one could expect that Quete (the local brew) income would in fact decline for all producers due to reduced availability and increased prices of the necessary inputs, sorghum and sugar. That relative income from quete brewing has either increased or remained stable for the two of the three groups reporting suggests that it remains a viable business even at a time when food security and livelihoods are stressed for all households.

> Heavy reliance on bush products will negatively affect the ecosystem and could contribute to reduced crop and livestock productivity in the long-term. Excessive charcoaling over time similarly will lead to environmental degradation and aggravate existing vulnerability to climatic shocks.

Coping strategies

> Poorer households (55% of total) have less livelihood diversity and are more dependent on agriculture than middle and better-off households (45%), and are hence more vulnerable to climatic variability than other households.

> Generally, middle households have a more diversified coping strategy pattern than poor or even better-off households. Perhaps the food and income sources of the better-off households are sufficiently diverse or resilient that the range of coping strategies demonstrated by middle households is not necessary for better-off households.

> Increased charcoal production is a key coping strategy for all groups at current, contributing up to roughly 30% of their income, more than double what it was for all households in the index year, while subsequently contributing to environmental degradation and erosion of the coping strategy itself.

> Casual labour and out-migration to more distant urban areas in neighbouring districts has increased significantly for all groups in both districts as households endeavour to compensate for lost income from own production. Like charcoal production, the proportion of casual income labour has at least doubled in 2008 for all households in comparison with the index year.

> It is unusual not to have wild food consumption mentioned in the coping strategies, despite that it is reported in the food sources and is common across all groups at all times, albeit to different degrees. It is possible that the prevalence of wild foods means that they are not considered by respondents as a coping strategy but rather as a normal food source or, for some items maybe even a delicacy.

> The better-off Moroto households report gifts as a new food source in 2008 but appear to contradict themselves by reporting less importance of gifts as a 2008 coping strategy. The question of what is considered a gift needs to be clarified, potentially not only food, but also


animals and other items are considered and would hence explain the discrepancy between gifts and food source.

Markets

> Due to insecurity, long distance and bad road conditions, local supply of goods not produced or available in the region is limited. Due to the current circumstances of limited available supply and access to markets, the entire economy of the assessed areas is affected. Local low production and animal conditions have an additional impact on market supply and household access to food and other goods, which in turn affect purchasing power.

> Animal product prices meet the expected trend, as they usually increase in a similar situation due to a lack of produce on the market. Agricultural produce prices have also increased, but in a milder way than animals and their products.

> Market purchase increases only marginally for poor and middle households in Kaabong and Moroto. Household inability to increase food through purchase could suggest that they are unable to access sufficient quantity and quality of food.

Humanitarian intervention

> While food aid may in some cases meet immediate needs, greater programmatic innovation is required to strengthen household livelihoods and food security, preclude the need for food aid, and break the cycle of passive dependence.

> There is a long tradition of aid handouts in Karamoja, best exemplified by 40 years of World Food Programme general distributions, which could prove difficult to overcome by agencies trying to facilitate greater community participation and ownership of longer term initiatives, such as those aiming to diversify income/food sources or increase household resilience to drought.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS > To target those most vulnerable to food insecurity, interventions should prioritise households

more dependent on agriculture before expending into livestock health initiatives.

> The existing nutrition programme centres (OTP) should provide a geographic and household entry point for ACF food security and livelihood programming in Karamoja, building on existing awareness of the agency and providing ready access to captive audiences waiting for treatment.

> Geographic and household targeting criteria should begin with an analysis of malnutrition data for greater relevance and guidance, such as utilising OTP enrolment trends to determine locations or communities with apparently higher malnutrition.6

> Demonstration gardens and agriculture plots should be established at each OTP site in order to reach mothers of children admitted to the feeding programme, then promoted at household level to offer an additional income and food source.

> Fuel efficient stoves and nutritious cooking demonstrations should also be promoted at each OTP site, and then promoted at household level to reduce fuel needs and encourage more nutritiously balanced food preparation.

> Increased agricultural production should be pursued in close collaboration with NAADS and through exposure and access to faster maturing and drought resistant varieties (such as sorghum, millet, maize, etc), complemented by training in cultivation techniques (such as rows, spacing, priming, etc).

6 This acknowledges that OTP data will indicate reported malnutrition rather than actual prevalence. That is, these communities/households may have greater access to or awareness of the OTPs, but may not necessarily be those where malnutrition is most severe.


> Income generating activities (with low environmental impact) and income diversification should be piloted to explore the dynamics of how individuals engage with the intervention and how best to promote such activities on a larger scale in the future. As part of the income generating activities (IGA), ACF should investigate possibilities for value addition and marketing of livestock products (cheese, dried meet, skin, hooves, horns, etc).

> Agro-forestry should be explored as a pilot income generating activity that could both contribute to reducing demand on the limited supply of wood fuel in the region and offer a household source of nutritious (and marketable?) plant products, e.g. fruits, leaves, nuts, etc.

> Over time, once ACF has established its FSL programming in Karamoja, it should consider strengthening animal production through community animal health workers, pastoralist field schools, or vaccination campaigns; these should be undertaken in coordination with the District Veterinary Offices in each district and sub-county. Strengthening the livestock sector may also contribute to the poorest households by creating income opportunities such as exchange of labour for animal products.

> Additional studies on the complex issues of loan systems and social-economic importance aspects of quete in Karamojong society should be conducted to enhance understanding and identify potential intervention opportunities.

> A long term perspective is required to offer any meaningful impact of ACF programmes on household food security or livelihoods; a sustained commitment to disaster risk reduction is highly recommended in this regard. Community participation needs to be emphasised and thereby a shift away from food aid dependency toward greater household agency and ownership of activities should be nurtured.

> Once FSL programmes are more firmly established in Karamoja, ACF should facilitate a focused advocacy campaign on the negative household impact of limited livestock mobility and the deleterious effects of cordoning livestock in densely populated kraal.


Figure 1. Karamoja Map and ACF Programme Areas


1. BACKGROUND The Karamoja region is located in the Northeast corner of Uganda and administratively divided into five districts: Abim, Kaabong, Kotido, Moroto, and Nakapiripirit. The region is occupied by different and competing clans. Labwor reside in Abim; Kaabong is predominantly occupied by Dodoth, with ethnic minorities such as Ike and Dodoth at the peripheries of Karenga. Bokora, Matheniko, and the minority Tepeth occupy Moroto while Pian are mainly found in Nakapiripirit. Some sources identify only Bokora, Matheniko, and Pian as Karamojong. However, except the Ike and Tepeth, all other clans speak NgaKaramojong with distinct dialects. Karamoja lies roughly between 1-40 latitude and 33-350 longitude, and covers an area of approximately 30,000 square kilometres. It is bordered in the East by Turkana and West Pokot districts of Kenya and in the North by Sudan. In Uganda it touches the districts of Kitgum, Pader, Lira, Amuria, Katakwi, and Kumi in the West and Sironko and Kapchorwa in the South. The total population of the region is estimated at around one million, which constitutes roughly 4% of the total Uganda population.7 Karamoja is the least populated area of Uganda, with only 35 people per square kilometre. The region receives an average annual rainfall between 500-800 mm and is classified as semi-arid by Ugandan standards. The high variability in temporal and spatial distribution of rain, however, is the determining factor that influences livelihood strategies, with two distinct livelihood zones running roughly north-south, with more rain in the western zone than the eastern (see map, below Agro-pastoralism is the dominant livelihood system of the region. It involves, with varying degree and intensity, both crop and livestock husbandry. The livestock production system integrates seasonal movement of herds between wet and dry season grazing lands. Cereals such as sorghum, millet and maize are also cultivated during the wet season and contribute to the household production and economy. Due to its inherent risk minimisation, agro-pastoralism is an appropriate livelihood system in semi-arid lands, particularly livestock who are more resilient to seasonal inconsistencies than crops. Fuller (1999), for example, explains that “in Karamoja crop failure may be expected once every third year while drought leading to starvation of at least 20% of livestock occurred only once every ten years between 1927 and 1995.”8 Traditionally, livestock raiding with small handheld weapons like spears and sticks was practiced between (and usually not among) different clans for socioeconomic reasons such as asset creation, dowry, or expression of manhood. Raiding was sanctioned by elders and the intensity, frequency, and fatality were limited. The practice has however changed shape in the recent past and today is among the main reasons for disrupted household livelihoods. Gray (2000) marks the 1970s as the turning point in Karamojong livestock raiding.9 In the first half of the 1970s, the traditional alliance of the Karamojong (Pian, Matheniko, and Bokora) collapsed due to the dynamics of drought and consecutive years of poor harvest. Conflicts, revenge attacks, and raids increased as a result. This was the first time that raids were sanctioned against another Karamojong groups. In 1979 Matheniko elders forged an alliance with the Turkana across the border in Kenya (previously considered an enemy group) and raided the Moroto army barracks, acquiring a substantial amount of guns and ammunition. At the same time, the Jie in Kotido took their own share of weaponry by raiding army barracks after the collapse of the Idi Amin regime. In the 1980s these armed groups intensified their attacks on unarmed Bokora and Dodoth groups and stripped almost all their livestock. Drought and subsequent livestock losses, herd out-migration, crop failure, insecurity, and cessation of trade due to the threat of attack on vehicles killed 50,000 people before the end of the 1980 famine.

7 OCHA-OPM (Office of the Prime Minister) Joint Fact sheet on Karamoja: Humanitarian and Development Realities in the Region, 18 April 2008. 8 Quoted in Walker (2002) Anti-Pastoralism and the Growth of Poverty and Insecurity in Karamoja: Disarmament and Development Dilemmas. Report for DFID East Africa (Uganda). 9 Cited in Stites et al (2007) Angering Akujů: Survival and Suffering in Karamoja. A Report on Livelihoods and Human Security in the Karamoja Region of Uganda. Feinstein International Center.


Figure 2. Karamoja Ethnic Groupings10

Since then, Karamoja has seen no peace due to constant attack and counter attack by these competing groups. The proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW) into the area from neighbouring Sudan, Kenya, and to a lesser extent Ethiopia and Somalia has fuelled the conflict.11 Violence further spread into neighbouring areas of Teso, Lango, and Acholi in the western parts of the country. Armed Karamojong repeatedly raided these regions and planted the seed for today’s mistrust and animosity between these groups. Under constant pressure from parliament, members of the Teso, Lango, and Acholi regions in 2002 with the Government of Uganda (GOU) initiated a voluntary disarmament program in Karamoja. Some started to hand over their guns. However, due to lack of protection from armed raiders for disarmed groups, among other shortcomings, the initial progress of the programme reversed and the population refused to disarm. After some a lull in 2006, the GOU launched a controversial disarmament programme using military personnel in cordon and search operations. The campaign was marred by disproportionate use of force and reports of human right abuses. After pressure from the international community, the government halted the use of excessive force.12 Today there are army contingents in each district that control security. However, the problem is complex and it extends beyond the border of Uganda. The history of cross border animosity and alliances with Turkana, Pokot, and Toposa communities who reside in neighbouring Kenya and Sudan demands to work together. These well armed groups are a threat to the Karamojong. Understandably, disarming only the Karamojong creates a power imbalance and leads to loss of

10 Source: UNOCHA Uganda, 1996 11 Mkutu (2008) Guns and Governance in the Rift Valley: pastoralist conflict and small arms. Indiana University Press. 12 Stites et al 2007, op cit.


household assets and wealth, namely livestock. Today, most Karamoja sub-counties have protected corrals called kraal beside army barracks to protect livestock from armed raiders. All human development indices show that Karamoja is one of the least developed parts of the country. Socioeconomic infrastructure and services such as schools, health centres, potable drinking water, roads, and production, processing, and marketing facilities are weak. Approximately 82% of the Karamoja population lives in poverty (defined as less than 1 U$/day) (compared to the national average of 31%%); life expectancy at birth is 47.7 years (versus an average of 50.4 for the country); global acute malnutrition (GAM) is 11% (versus a national average of 6%), infant and under-five mortality rates are 105 and 174 per 1,000 live births respectively (compared to a national average of 76 and 134); only 43 and 9% of the population have access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities (compared to national averages of 67 and 59%); and only 11% of the population is literate (against a national average of 67%).13 Many sources indicate historical marginalisation, misguided pastoral policies, and a lack of development programmes as the major causes of the region’s tenacious poverty and conflict. Karamoja is home to complex natural and manmade disasters that hold the attention of researchers and humanitarian agencies. Consecutive years of poor rainfall, flooding, pervasive insecurity, internal and cross border armed livestock raids, and the government disarmament programme are the main reasons for disruption of already weak production and marketing processes and aggravation of household food insecurity and weakening livelihoods. A number of humanitarian and development actors are implementing programmes in nutrition, food security, water and sanitation, and relief distribution; the World Food Programme (WFP) is distributing food aid for an estimated 700,000 people considered highly food insecure (of the roughly one million people in the region). Recently, IRIN quoted Uganda's State Minister in Charge of Refugees and Disaster Preparedness in an emotive report titled “Uganda: Starvation Risk to 1m in Northeast” and put the whole Karamoja under humanitarian emergency.14 ACF was first operational in Karamoja during the severe drought and emergency response of 1980-1983. Following a needs assessment conducted in late 2007, ACF entered into agreement with MSF Spain (Kaabong) and Holland (Moroto) to continue operating the feeding programmes established during these organisations’ emergency response. The handover of 10 feeding centres in Kaabong will be completed at the end of 2008, with an additional 13 handovers completed in Moroto by January 2009. Food security and livelihood (FSL) programming is also envisaged for 2009 to complement the core nutrition work, to address underlying factors of malnutrition in Karamoja. Toward this, an assessment was initiated to assess FSL priorities and provide guidance for subsequent responses. A total of thirteen sub-counties were assessed by ACF in Kaabong and Moroto districts within a two week period of August 2008. The assessment primarily focused on the status of household food security and livelihoods, with supplementary but limited data collection on nutrition, water, sanitation, and hygiene. This resulting report attempts to elaborate shifts in household food and income sources, coping strategies, performance of crop and livestock production, and future trends of household food security in order to inform better the initiatives undertaken by Action Against Hunger and the wider humanitarian community active or interested in Karamoja. 2. OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY The objectives of this assessment are to assess and document the FSL situation in Kaabong and Moroto districts of Karamoja and to propose a strategically appropriate direction for ACF to expand its existing Karamoja nutrition programme to address underlying factors of malnutrition and include FSL initiatives. 2.1 Location The assessment covered Kaabong and Moroto districts of Karamoja. Kaabong is located at the extreme Northeast tip of the region and is predominantly occupied by Dodoth, with minority Ike (sometimes also called Teuso) found in upper Kalapata sub-county. Ike and “Dodoth of Karenga” (other Dodoth call them Ngikatap) have been forced to abandon livestock production due to intensive internal raiding by Dodoth and Jie, in addition to cross border raids by Turkana of Kenya

13 The statistics in this paragraph are from UNOCHA (OPM) 2008, op cit. 14 IRIN, July, 30, 2008. Kampala, Uganda.


and Toposa of Sudan. Raids on the “Dodoth of Karenga” (Ngikatap) by other Dodoth seem outside the ‘rules of the game’ as no other clan in Karamoja raids its own members, at least at this time. Moroto district lies south of Kaabong, north of Nakapiripirit and east of Kotido. Bokora, Matheniko, and Tepeth are the dominant clans/ethnic groups of the district. Since the 1970s, after the collapse of clan alliance among Karamojong, the Bokora and Matheniko have had a tense relationship; raid and counter-raid are rampant among these two clans. The situation is further complicated by a cross-border alliance of Matheniko with Turkana in Kenya. The minority Tepeth are protected from these formidable foes (including the Jie) by the mountainous terrain and by maintaining a cross border alliance with the Pokot in Kenya. Thirteen sub-counties, including Kaabong and Moroto town councils (TC), and 32 parishes therein were assessed from 1-15 August 2008: Figure 3. Assessment Locations

District Sub-County Parish

Kaabong

Kaabong TC Biafra, Kampswahili, Komuria Kaabong Rural Lobongia, Lokerui, Lokolia Kalapata Kapalata, Lotim, Timu Karenga Karenga, Lokori, Loyoro Lolelia Kaimese, Lolelia, Loteleit Sidok Kakamar

Moroto

Moroto TC Boma North, Boma South , New Campswahili, Old Campswahili Iriiri Iriiri, Lorengecora, Nabwal Katikekile Lia, Tapac Lotome Kalokengel, Lumuno, Moruongor Nadunget Loputuk, Nadunget, Naitakwae Ngoleriet Lokoreto, Naitakwae, Nawaikorot Rupa Mogoth, Pupu, Rupa

2.2 Data Collection Methods Primary and secondary data were collected at district, community, and household (wealth group) levels. Focus group discussions with community elders were conducted in two stages, first to establish specific wealth group rankings for household representative interviews. Secondly, in-depth discussions were conducted regarding the land tenure system, adaptive strategies, the performance of crop and livestock production, challenges and opportunities of different wealth groups, and priority areas of interventions. In total 32 focus group discussions were conducted using semi-structured questionnaires with fair representations of men and women. A total 190 household representative interviews were conducted using structured questionnaires. The interviews achieved fair representations of gender and age. The interviews provided a deeper insight and analysis into the household economy, production patterns, asset composition, coping strategies, access to food, income sources, expenditure patterns, crop and livestock production challenges, and overall priorities. Key informant interviews were conducted with officials from district and sub-county administrations, district agriculture, livestock, and fishery departments, staff of different NGOs and agropastoral civil society groups of Karamoja. In total 15 key informant interviews were conducted using checklists and semi-structured questionnaires. An additional 40 interviews were conducted with traders (both retailers and wholesalers), and livestock markets in Kaabong and Moroto districts were visited (see Appendix H). Secondary information collected and reviewed includes district agriculture and fishery department reports, NGO and UN agency reports, and an array of published studies (footnoted herein).


2.3 Data Analysis Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. The household economy approach (HEA) and sustainable livelihood framework15 were considered to assess the livelihoods context and identify linkages among different variables. To analyse shifts in food sources, income, expenditure, and coping strategies comparison was made between the present and the same time during a ‘normal’ year. In terms of crop production, 2005 was considered a normal year due to average rain and production levels. Therefore the anticipated 2008 crop harvest was compared with the 2005 harvest. However, livelihood effects of the 2005 harvest on households do not begin to manifest until the end of 2005 and into the rest 2006. For this reason 2006 was taken as the index year to compare household food, income, expenditure, and coping strategies. On the basis of this analysis, a series of conclusions offers guidance to programmatic recommendations for ACF and the larger humanitarian community. 3. ANALYSIS 3.1 Livelihood Systems Uganda hosts an array of livelihood zones within its territory, illustrated in Figure 4, below. Nowhere are the patterns as consistent as they are in Karamoja in Uganda’s northeast. While the entire region is to varying degrees agro-pastoral, there are distinct variances from wet to dry as one proceeds from west to east across Karamoja. Figure 4. Livelihood Zones of Uganda

The following seasonal calendar illustrates the key features of the Karamoja unimodal seasonal calendar (and aligns it with the bimodal calendar that applies to the rest of Uganda). The disparity is immediate, and the chronic cycle of largely climatic shocks is understandable (for a more detailed calendar that tries to capture the west-east distinction discussed above, in addition to seminal livelihood activities, see Appendix B).

15 Dfid 1996, The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework


Figure 5. Uganda Seasonality16

One key informant aptly described the Karamojong livelihood system as a “sorghum and cattle economy.” Crop and livestock production, or agro-pastoralism, are the dominant economic activities both as sources of food and income. However, the degree of importance attached to each varies between groups and according to location. Generally from west to east the weather becomes increasingly dry, hence emphasis shifts from crop to livestock production. The long term average rainfall data show that the area receives between 500 to 800 millimetres of rainfall per year which makes Karamoja one of the wettest areas occupied by pastoralists in the Horn of Africa. However, the variability, measured as deviation from mean, is very high (see Appendix E).17 This uncertainty of rainfall is the main reason why most households do not depend solely on cultivation. Livestock can more effectively exploit the temporal and spatial variability in natural resources. Therefore, most of the population in Karamoja rely on livestock and crop production, each of which will be discussed separately in the sections that follow. The soils are predominantly sandy loams with areas of black clay, sand and clay alluvial. The main crops are those that can withstand relatively drier conditions including sorghum, bulrush/pearl millet, finger millet, maize, beans, groundnut, sunflower, cucumber, and pumpkins.18 Intercropping of these different crops in one garden is another feature of the crop production system. Intercropping, in contrast to mono-cropping, is a risk diversification strategy which practices to optimise production from small plot of land. Utilization of modern agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and hybrid seeds are absent. Grains, vegetables and oil seeds from own production are sources of food for households. Grain sale is practiced in small quantity at different times when the need for other items is raised and augments household income. Cattle dominate livestock production, followed by goats and sheep; camels are also found in the drier parts of Moroto district among the Matheniko. Livestock production has undergone the process of intensification through selection of breeds which are well adapted to the climate of the area. The small-sized Karamojong Zebu (compared to other East African Zebu cattle, e.g. the Boran of Kenya and Ethiopia), Blackhead Persian Sheep and Nubian Goats are valued not only as sources of food and income but also for their ability to trek long distances during the dry season, resistance to certain diseases, and fairly good performance under water and feed stress.19 Animals provide food such as meat, milk, and blood for household consumption. Sales of animal products like milk, butter, skin, and live animals are also sources of income. Extensive grazing land is the main source of feed for livestock and access to this resource depends on membership to a certain clan. The production system involves seasonal migration of animals and humans in search of water and pasture. This movement enables herders to exploit the seasonal variability of natural resources and is crucial to maintain household food security. Seasonal rivers are sources of water for humans and livestock and access is free of charge. During wet season these sources are full and the problem of shortage of water eases. However, during dry periods these sources become dry and herders dig traditional wells on river beds to water their animals. Micro dams constructed by the government and NGOs are also means of water retention for livestock and human consumption during dry as well as wet seasons. Water troughs which connect with boreholes

16 Source: http://www.fews.net/pages/timelineview.aspx?gb=ug&tln=en&l=en 17 Smith (1986) cited in Wilson and Rowland (2001) Land and Agriculture in Karamoja. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid.


are also found in some parishes. They are managed by the community and initial and repair payment is required to access these sources. Strict division of labour within households is a dominant feature of Karamojong social and livelihood systems. Women and young girls cultivate crops while men and young boys tend herds. The availability of family labour is a crucial factor which determines the success of household livelihood strategies and ultimately its goal of wealth creation in terms of large herd holdings. To this end households employ different strategies such as marriage, herdsmen labour for livestock products and labour for local drink through organization of communal parties.20 Marriage (women as child bearer are the ultimate sources of labour) and the transfer of bride dowry present the following livelihood strategy:21

Livestock Labour Grain Livestock In this, livestock are exchanged for labour which produces grain, which can be further exchanged for livestock or the production of more grain. This strategy eases pressure on herds through high requirement of animal products. The economic rationale of raiding to pay bride wealth lies in this analysis. Those men who are unable to pay the high prices of bride dowry attempt to appropriate it from an ‘enemy production unit’ to invest in productive process. Another livelihood strategy is the exchange of herdsmen labour for animal products.

Livestock Labour Livestock Animal products are used to buy labour, which in return will increase migration of the herds to ensure better access to pasture and water. The migration helps improve animal conditions (due to regular water and pasture), which in exchange increases income from animals but as well the animal reproduction and hence the real capital. Hence, investment in labour can be directly linked to improved herds and head numbers. Women also implement another analogous livelihood strategy, with important implications for both the household economy and the surrounding social fabric:

Grain Quete Labour Grain Sorghum is transformed into quete (the local brew) to buy labour that ultimately helps increase income and access to food through increased purchasing power. The economic rationale of value addition through processing is clear. The finished product (quete) is more valuable than the raw material (sorghum); an effective (female) producer can extract UGX 4,500 worth of quete from UGX 1,200 worth of sorghum. This could in part explain the prevalence of quete in daily public life. It’s also important to note that quete production and sale is a typically female domain, although consumption appears to be normal for both. Sorghum’s profitability, however, is at the potential expense of productivity, given the ubiquity of quete. Maize, currently provided in the WFP food ration, provides a valuable substitute to produce quete as compared to the more expensive Sorghum. Value addition to maize-based quete, is even more beneficial to the households, as no expenditure for the cereal has been necessary. General land tenure and use is similar in both districts, but with differences in the local name for the community, clan, family based systems. Grazing land is always a community issue, agricultural land is always a family issue, which is administered and managed accordingly.

20 Qaum (1970) Cattle Marketing and Pastoral Conservatism: Karamoja District, Uganda, 1946-1970. 21 The three schema that follow are all adapted from Qaum (1970), ibid.


Figure 6. Land Tenure Terminology Tenure System Kaabong Moroto Sub-Counties Represented Karenga Kalapata Iriiri, Katikekile, Lotome, Nadunget,

Ngolereit, Rupa

Parishes Represented

Biafra, Campswahili, Kaimese, Karenga, Lokerui, Lolelia, Loyoro, Loteteleit,

Kalapata, Sidok (1&2), Timu

Iriiri, Kalokengel, Lokoreto, Lomuron, Loputuk, Lorengechora, Mogoth, Nadunget, Naitakwae, Nawaikorot, Pupu, Rupa, Tapac

Tenure System Kaabong Moroto Grazing Local Name Apero Amoni Apero, Nariet, Ariveet Management Community Community Community Access/Use right

Clan base Clan base Clan based

Cultivation Local Name Emanikor,

Aman Sedik, Emanikor Amana

Management Family Family Family Access/Use right

Family Family Family

Overall, the main hazard for Karamoja remains drought, followed by crop disease. In terms of security, Moroto appears to be a calmer place with no conflict mentioned, although this might depend on how “conflict” was understood by respondents. In Kaabong and Moroto districts, 38% and 50% of hazards, respectively, are preventable and manageable: animal and crop disease. Drought is of course less treatable, but certain aspects related to its negative livelihood impact can be addressed by preparedness and innovative risk reduction programming. Figure 7. Hazard Ranking

Chronic Hazard Kaabong (%) Moroto (%) Drought 46 50 Crop disease 23 33 Animal disease 15 17 Conflict 15 0 Flood 1 0 Total 100 100

3.2 Livestock Production Livestock production, particularly cattle, is at the centre of Karamojong socioeconomic life. Religion, tradition, culture, and economic activities are interwoven with cattle production. It is not only a mode of production but a mode of perception as well.22 Small ruminants such as goats and sheep, and in drier areas camels, are also integral parts of the production system. During focus group discussions with community elders, half identified livestock raids as the leading problem disrupting their livestock production, followed by diseases (30%) and seasonal shortages of pasture and water (20%). Livestock raiding is an adaptive strategy common among pastoralists of the Horn of Africa as a means of wealth redistribution.23 Ecologists even appreciate the rationale of livestock redistribution

22 Novelli (1999) Karamojong Traditional Religion a Contribution. Camboni Missionaries, Kampala. 23 Blench and Marriage (1999) cited in Ahmed et al (undated) Post-Drought Recovery Strategies among Pastoral Households in the Horn of Africa: A Review. Development Research Report Series (No. 3).


when practiced from high to low livestock pressure areas and peacefully, for example as payment of large herds for dowry or gifts to families and friends. However, the intensification of raiding in Karamoja since the 1970s has led to livestock asset depletion and aggravated household food insecurity. The frontal sub-counties of the Bokora, namely Lotome and Ngolereit, have lost their livestock assets due to intensive raiding; while the Dodoth of Kalapata lost theirs to Jie and Turkana raiders. The ethnic minority Ike of Kalapata and Dodoth of Karenga (Ngikatap) were even forced out of livestock production through intensive raids by the Toposa, Turkana, Jie, and Dodoth. Incessant raids and counter raids, coupled with diseases, have led to remarkable reductions in livestock numbers. Using comparisons with the Karamojong ideal viable herd size of 60 per household (i.e. 6 cattle per capita)24, Novelli (1999) provides historical analysis of changes in herd size.25 In 1959 the per capita herd size was 2.69 total livestock units (TLU) per capita; in 1969 it decreased slightly to 2 TLU/capita; and during the 1980 famine it reduced significantly to 0.74 TLU/capita due to drought, epidemics, and raids (Appendix G). Today, there is a high probability that the number will reduce even further, erode household resilience, and contribute to vulnerability.26 The combination of livestock loss and high dependence on erratic rain fed crop production is at the heart of vulnerability to food insecurity in Karamoja. In the agropastoral production system, households who can achieve and maintain a balance between crop and livestock production perform better and remain more resilient. Skewed dependence in one of the two production systems will increase vulnerability to climatic and market shocks, especially if dependent on crop production. To curb increasing Karamoja violence and insecurity, the government launched voluntary disarmament in 2002. However, lack of protection for the disarmed population reversed the initial success of the programme. After a lull in 2006 the government again launched a more controversial forced disarmament programme using military personnel in cordon and search operations. Protected kraal have since been established in every sub-county, situated beside military barracks to protect livestock from raiders. One key informant in Kalapata sub-county reported the presence of 30,000 cattle in one protected kraal. Even if conducted with good intentions, respondents everywhere report that the system reduces household access to livestock products and the reduced ability to purchase food through animal sales. The kraal also foster disease transmission and increase pressure on pasture and water resources as herders are forced to remain within a day’s walk from the kraal to be able to return with the animals in the evening, when the kraal are closed. Local government officials contacted during the assessment did not seem to have a plan for the dry season when pasture becomes scare and the need for movement arises, although popular perception was that the kraal would of course be relocated during the 2009 dry season. Since then, however, the government has announced that the kraal will not be relocated to relieve dry season overgrazing. Despite these sacrifices in the name of livestock protection, however, raiding continues even in those kraal under army defence. The overall effect of these kraal therefore is the disruption of livestock production, which contributes to households vulnerability across all wealth groups. Extensive pastureland use is the main source of feed for livestock, and all members of the same clan have equal access on a first come, first serve basis. Herding involves seasonal movement of livestock and their keepers between wet and dry season pastures. Karamojong herdsmen previously went as far as the neighbouring sub-regions of settled agriculturalists in Teso, Lango, and Acholi. This seasonal movement was beneficial for both communities. While the herdsmen gained from availability of pasture for their livestock (mainly crop residues in the fields), the settled agriculturalists benefit from availability of animal products, market opportunities, and natural fertilisation of agricultural fields. The symbiotic relationship was interrupted as a result of animosity fomented by Karamojong raids in these regions and subsequent restrictions imposed by the government. Seasonal cross border movement of herds and humans into neighbouring countries is also an integral part of the system. The Matheniko migration to Turkana (Kenya) and the Tepeth to Pokot (Kenya) contribute to household food security through exploitation of seasonal variability of natural vegetation and market opportunities. The imposition of restrictions on livestock movement between districts and across borders due to insecurity, and measures taken to control it, curtail household access to grain and livestock market opportunities. Moreover, due to the risk of

24 6 cattle per adult would provide 4.2Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) per adult, which is sufficient to maintain a pastoral adult life (3.5-4 TLU/adult). For Agropastoralists, 1.5-2 TLU/adult are suggested, which would translate into 3 cattle per adult. 25 Novelli (1999) Karamojong Traditional Religion: A Contribution. Camboni Missionaries. Kampala, Uganda. 26 UBOS (Uganda Bureau of Statistics) recently conducted livestock a census in the country and they are in the process of report writing. Results are expected to be released at the end of the year or early 2009.


sudden attack from bordering clans, vast pastureland is also wasted as a buffer zone within Karamoja and contributes to the shortage of pasture and consequently poor performance of livestock. Contagious and fatal livestock diseases combined with weak veterinary services result in decreased animal numbers and production while reducing household food and income sources. The following table outlines household ranking of the main diseases confronting their livestock production: Figure 8. Diseases Threatening Livestock Production

Disease Kaabong (%) Moroto (%) CBPP/CCPP 40 41 East coast fever 14 27 Rinderpest 14 22 Ticks 13 8 Worms 10 2 PPR 9 0 Total 100 100

CBPP/CCPP (contagious bovine pleuropneumonia), East Cost Fever, and Rinderpest are the main threats to animal health. All of them are both treatable and preventable through effective and affordable veterinary services, further strengthened by community awareness and early warning. Small ruminant plague (peste des petits ruminants, PPR) outbreaks currently are mentioned only in Kaabong, but will likely spread. It is a new disease for Karamoja, and district officials believe it came from South Sudan or Kenya. Such outbreaks are not only a threat to animal life but also to economic income and exchange, as quarantine has been imposed on animal exports from Karamoja to other districts of Uganda. Vaccination campaigns are underway, but face multiple challenges to ensure effective treatment and control. Seasonal herd movements show that Kaabong has greater mobility than Moroto. Herds in Kaabong concentrate around three main areas: Loyoro, Sangar, and Lolelia parishes when pasture is available and, more critically, where government kraal are located. In Moroto, herders indicate simpler movements between the surrounding grazing lands and the kraal where livestock are kept overnight. (See Appendix C for an illustration of Kaabong livestock migration routes.) Figure 9. Herd Migration Dynamics

Seasonal Migration

Wealth Redistribution (livestock) Species

Diversifi-cation

Season Decision Threats Raiding

Acquisition Threats Internal

External

Kaabong

Dry/wet

Leaders

Drought, raids, disease

Dodoth, Jie

Turkana

Friends, bride

Over-crowding, disease

Cattle, goats, sheep

Moroto

Dry/wet

Elders, army

Drought, disease, insecurity

None

Kie, Bokora, Matheniko, Pian

Marriage, gift

Over-crowding, reduced numbers

Cattle, goats, sheet

Decisions on herd management and movement are usually taken by elders in the respective community. In Moroto, however, respondents have clearly indicated that the army makes such decisions and thereby restricts herd movements through the kraal system. Regarding threats, it is interesting that Moroto respondents indicate insecurity whereas in Kaabong they indicated raiding as a threat (aside from drought and disease, which were reported in both districts). The question is, does this distinction reflect perception and interpretation or is non-traditional insecurity (e.g. that caused by disarmament) higher in Moroto than in Kaabong? In addition, only Kaabong indicates internecine raiding threats, whereas Moroto indicates only external enemies. The general origin of animals comes through gifts and marriage in one way or an other, although livestock acquisition through raids would probably not be reported to an unknown assessment team, given that it is an illegal activity.


In conclusion, widespread insecurity, measures taken by the government to control it, and high disease prevalence threaten the main household food and income sources. This exacerbates Karamoja household food insecurity in an otherwise viable – albeit challenging – climate for livestock production. 3.3 Crop Production Karamojong call sorghum the “cattle of women,” illustrating two issues. The first highlights the agricultural significance of sorghum in terms of coverage and total production. The second demonstrates gender division of labour in the household. Crop cultivation was exclusively a female role until recently; the participation of men in crop production is a recent phenomenon apparently attributable to the reduction of livestock numbers and the growing importance of agriculture in the household economy.27 Crop cultivation is practiced during the wet season away from the manyatta homestead. Each manyatta also has its own garden and is managed by women. Family labour is the main input to the production process. All cultivation practices, from land preparation to harvest, are done manually. Coupled with the requirement for labour in herding, this exerts high labour demand on households. Availability of early rain and labour are the factors that determine the area under cultivation. It is a common practice to save some sorghum from the previous harvest and process it into quete in order to purchase labour for food crop cultivation. Crop failure resulting from late or insufficient rain is a common phenomenon and, as will be discussed further below, one of the central features of household vulnerability in the region – particularly for households with less livestock. Simple agricultural tools such as hoes, machetes, and in some cases ox ploughs are used in the production process. Utilisation of modern farm inputs such as fertilisers, pesticides, and hybrid seeds are virtually absent. Interestingly even manure, which is abundant, is not widely utilised to fertilise food crops (or as a cooking fuel). By comparison, manure apparently is more commonly used for tobacco cultivation in the immediate manyatta vicinity. This raises a lingering question deserving further investigation, as dung seemingly could fulfil a hugely beneficial role in household cultivation. Respondents seem aware of the potential benefits, but it is not yet clear what the underlying reasons are for avoiding use of dung to fertilise field crops. Coupled with the absence of crop residue cut and carry practices, this suggests that the Karamojong agro pastoral system is at an early stage of intensification (cf. Boserup 1965).28 Intercropping (often sorghum, millet, beans, sunflower, cucumber, pumpkin, and cabbages) in one field is a common practice in local crop production. This technique is used to optimise production by diversifying risks such as erratic rainfall; pest attacks, and market price fluctuations. The harvest of each year is used for seed material for the following season; storage is facilitated on household level. In bad years, with early hungry season, grains envisioned for seed material, might be consumed. The western part of the region is wetter than the east and more favourable for crop production. Productivity (kg/acre) is very low, however, even in normal years due to widespread pest attacks and the absence of modern farm inputs (see Appendix B). Households have expressed a range of reasons for poor agriculture performance and the main challenges they face (Figure 10). Drought and insecurity are the highest mentioned, reflecting either a problem with access to land for cultivation or insufficient rain to ensure crop maturity. Access to agricultural inputs and pest control follow in rank, posing further challenges to production.

27 Stites et al (2007), op cit. 28 Cited in Morris et al (2002) Understanding Household Coping Strategies in Semi-Arid Tanzania: Synthesis of Findings. Natural Resources Institute, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Sokoine University of Agriculture. Technical Report, DFID.


Figure 10. Threats to Agricultural Production

Threat Kaabong (%) Moroto (%) Drought 30 35 Insecurity 30 24 Pests 19 19 Shortage of inputs 18 22 Poor storage 4 0 Total 100 100

Army worms, stalk borers, and weevils represent more than half of the pest threat to agriculture production in Kaabong and Moroto districts (Figure 11). These are preventable pre-harvest losses as all are treatable and controllable. A combination of all these challenges is responsible for an anticipated harvest of only 57% of normal in 2008 (see Appendix F for estimates of 2008 harvest decline). Figure 11. Pests Threatening Agricultural Production

Pest Kaabong (%) Moroto (%) Army worms 24 32 Stalk borers 12 8 Weevils 19 14 Aphids 11 15 Shot flies 4 10 Wild animals 13 10 Termites 6 4 Grasshoppers 3 5 Post-harvest pests 10 2 Total 100 100

A two year old programme is underway in Karamoja as part of a nationwide goal to modernise crop production, the National Agricultural Advisory Service (NAADS). Although already established throughout Uganda, NAADS started its Karamoja activities in 2006 by establishing pilot demonstration sites in the ten Kaabong sub-counties. According to district officials, there is a plan to establish demonstration sites in all sub-counties of Karamoja in 2009, concentrating on two preferred crops identified by each hosting community. Although the aim of NAADS is to introduce modern crop husbandry in the region through demonstration, it is currently too early to judge its success or failure. The seasonal calendar (see Appendix B) shows that rain normally starts in March/April and lasts until early July. In 2008, in most parts of the region, rains did not commence until June and crops were therefore at very early stages during this assessment. The prospect for normal harvests from these crops is slim since the rains are likely to end soon. In the western part of Moroto district, especially in Iriiri sub-county, matured crops are also affected by the late rain and will contribute further to harvest reduction. Moreover, widespread insecurity, fear, and the reported displacement of farmers in Iriiri, Karenga, and Kalapata from fertile agricultural lands has contributed to further reductions in the area under crop cultivation. Together with pest attacks, these factors will result in yield reductions that will in turn weaken the household economy and increase food insecurity. Compared to the normal cultivation year (2005), estimated total production in 2008 will decline on average by more than 50% for major crops like sorghum, finger millet, pearl millet, and beans (see Appendix F). This sharp reduction in production, coupled with consecutive years of failure, will reduce food availability during 2008 and at least until the next harvest toward the fourth quarter of 2009.29 Combined with disruption of the livestock sector and high grain prices in the major markets, households will face reduced access to food and subsequently higher levels of food insecurity until the next harvest or, more forebodingly, until a more favourable rain and cultivation year.

29 Indeed, at the 3 February 2009 food security and agricultural livelihood (FSAL) cluster meeting in Kampala, WFP announced that 50% food rations would be distributed to 970,000 people between then and October.


Average Retail Prices of commodities (2006 versus 2008)

-500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,000

SorghumBea

ns

Cassav

a flour

PoshoRice

Sugar Salt

Pric

es/k

g

20062008

Average Retail Prices of Animal Products (2006 versus 2008)

-500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

Goat Meat CattleMeat

Milk Egg

2006

2008

3.4 Markets Like the majority of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, household production systems integrate partially with markets. The forward and backward linkages through purchase of inputs and sale of products are weak in Kaabong and Moroto. Input purchases are occasional and typically limited to veterinary drugs and small farm hand tools. Product sales are also in small quantity, often limited to when needs arise for other items or cash. Normally, immediately after crop harvest (from August/September through January), sales of grain, vegetables, and oil seeds increase. During the hunger period (that typically extends from March/April to July/August) live animal sales increase. Households travel on foot with their products to the nearest market; sometimes it takes one to two days to transact in these markets. Use of transport animals is almost absent. It is interesting to note that the negative impact of raids and insecurity extends to transport animals as well. Grain sales are made in small quantities of local measures (such as a single cooking oil can of sorghum, for example, weighing roughly 3.5 kilograms) at different times of year to buy flour, rice, sugar, cooking oil, and salt. Small traders collect grain and resell it at higher prices during the dry season. Live animal sales, especially shoats and poultry, are the main sources of income during the hunger period to buy grains and other food/non-food items. Livestock products like eggs, milk, butter, and skins also augment household incomes. Cattle are the repository of household wealth and sales consequently are made only occasionally to provide for human asset development (education and health) and other investments to expand wealth. Figure 12. Average Retail Prices of Commodities (UGX)

The main crop and livestock market centres in the districts are Kaabong, Kathile, Kapedo, and Kalapata in Kaabong district; Moroto, Kangole, and Matany in Moroto district. These markets are small, fragmented, and difficult to access, all of which lead to price distortions, low farm gate prices, and high prices for merchandise. The combination of these factors contributes to weak household purchasing power.

Figure 13. Average Retail Prices of Animal Products (UGX)

The Kaabong and Moroto market centres function as satellites for more distant trading centres in other districts outside Karamoja, such as Kitgum, Lira, Mbale, Soroti, Kumi, and Katakwi. Generally speaking, Karamoja imports grains and other food and non-food household items while exporting live animals to these centres. Therefore, market events in neighbouring trading centres have a direct impact on commodity supply and prices in Karamoja. Local markets therefore are affected by both

internal and external dynamics.


Average Prices of Live Animals (2006 versus 2008)

-100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000

Chicken Goat Cattle

2006

2008

Compared to 2006, prices for grain and other food and non-food items have increased significantly in Kaabong and Moroto markets. Commodity price increases are weakening purchasing power and reducing household access to purchased food, especially for the poorest (and most market dependent) households. Demand and supply dynamics of the region can partly explain price increments in these markets. General insecurity and fear of attack, poor road infrastructure especially during rains, distance from major market centres, and high grain demand induced by crop failure are the main reasons behind the increases. FEWSNET, for example, reports that price increments in Lira and Soroti are averaging 72 and 36 % higher, respectively, than the five-year average, caused by high transportation costs and supply shortages arising from high demand from neighbouring countries like Sudan and Kenya.30 These directly translate into higher commodity prices in Karamoja. Prices for live animals and animal products have also increased in the Kaabong and Moroto markets. These increases are mainly induced by supply shortages as a result of restrictions on livestock movement, insecurity and fear, and quarantine restrictions imposed on animal sales from Karamoja. The increase in livestock prices does not, however, translate into increased purchasing power or greater household food security by stabilising terms of trade, because the increase reflects limited supply rather than high demand. (See Appendix D for a more detailed list of commodity prices.) Figure 14. Average Retail Prices of Livestock (UGX)

A marked difference between farm gate and retail prices of livestock has also been observed in the region. Generally speaking, a Karamojong livestock trader can purchase a locally bull for UGX 300,000 and sell it for UGX 500,000 in other district markets. Roughly, traders anticipate a net profit of UGX 100,000 per head to compensate for the potential risk of capital loss resulting from raids during transportation. Market prices show significant differences between 2006 and 2008.

Astonishingly, animal prices are much higher now than in 2006, even though diseases are widespread and conditions are not particularly good. In such a situation, the normal market prices for animals reduce until the epidemic is controlled and the next rain season has begun. In addition, the local market should be flooded with animals due to movement restrictions and quarantine, thereby reducing prices. Animal products meet the expected trend, as they usually increase in a similar situation due to a lack of produce on the market. Agricultural produce prices have also increased, but in a milder way than animals and their products. Other not locally available or produced items (such as soap, candles, clothes, etc.) have increased too, which is certainly due to insecurity and reduced movements from supplying markets, and also to increasing transport costs. Interestingly, honey and charcoal have seen substantial increases over time. Charcoal prices should however presently be lower as all wealth groups have indicated this as a current coping mechanism, suggesting that there is plenty of firewood and charcoal available on the market; it is unclear why honey prices have increased. Aside from global food price increases, household respondents have identified several reasons for seasonal and non-seasonal price fluctuations in Kaabong and Moroto markets. Insecurity (due to raiding and disarmament) and general supply problems have been the most important reasons for price fluctuations in both districts. The mention of supply reflects seasonal availability issues and the general hesitation of suppliers to come to Karamoja, largely because of insecurity and bad roads.

30 FEWSNET (2008), op cit.


Figure 15. Reasons for Price Fluctuations

Reason Kaabong (%) Moroto (%) Supply 28 42 Insecurity 28 29 Bad roads 22 21 High transport costs 14 8 Distance 8 0 Total 100 100

Noticeably in Figure 16, few households classify their access to markets as good. The vast majority in both districts (100% and 89% in Kaabong and Moroto, respectively) feel they have bad access to markets mainly due to insecurity, bad roads, and long distances between them and their next market centre. Figure 16. Market Access

District Quality (%) Reason (%)

Bad Good Total Insecurity Bad road Distance Transport Cost Total

Kaabong 100 0 100 97 97 97 26 100 Moroto 89 11 100 31 33 31 0 100

Due to these circumstances of available supply and access to markets, the entire economy of the assessed areas is affected. Local low production and animal conditions have an additional impact on market supply and household access to food and other goods, which in turn affect purchasing power. The markets used by the local population differ significantly in terms of distance. For Kaabong district, Kaabong town (61%), Kitgum (35%), and Lira (32%) are the most frequented markets in the area. For Moroto district, local small markets cover most market needs (47%) followed by Moroto Town (24%) and Matany (18%). Kaabong and Moroto show significant differences in their food procurement patterns. Both districts have cereals and beans as their main purchased food products, superseded only by cooking oil and salt. Interesting is the significant difference of % ages reported between the two districts for virtually all purchased items, possibly suggesting that local food purchase is much higher in Kaabong. More likely, however, is that the question was either asked or interpreted differently in the two districts, therefore yielding contradictory sets of numbers. 3.5 Wealth Groups The Karamojong maintain a mixed economy of crop cultivation, mainly sorghum and herding. However, the financial base of the economy rests in cattle. Cattle are primarily used as repository of wealth due to their high liquidity and natural expansion through reproduction. Ownership is individual, although households operate as an enterprise managing composite herds. Therefore, ownership of livestock, especially cattle, was used as a key criterion, among others, to differentiate wealth groups during community focus group discussions. Three distinct wealth groups are identified based on this criterion. These are the poor, middle and better-off. The better-off are relatively few (15%) and have ample family labour (large household size), engage intensively both in crop and livestock production, and operate small businesses. They own large numbers of livestock, especially cattle. The medium group depends on a comparatively better diversification of both crop and livestock production. They own a fairly large number of cattle, have large family sizes and cultivate medium size gardens. They satisfy household food requirements from a combination of crop and livestock production and purchase. They also hire in labour to help in cultivation and herding.


Figure 17. Wealth Group Breakdown

Description Kaabong Moroto Poor Middle Better Poor Middle Better

Number of wives per husband 1-2 4 6 1-3 3-4 4-6 Household size (people) 5-8 12 16 10-13 15 17 Cattle owned 1-5 6-7 8-15 1-3 3-5 5-10 Goats owned 1-20 30-50 50-60 1-6 6-10 10-20 Sheep owned 1-20 25-30 25-30 1-7 8-15 15-20 Months of consumption from own harvest

3-4 5 6 3-4 5 6

Proportion of households in wealth group

65 20 15 60 20 20

The poor represent 40 and 15% respectively among the communities assessed in Kaabong and Moroto. The poor households are those with multiple vulnerabilities including less available family labour, few or no livestock and dependence on cultivation of a small plot of land. The poor depend on selling charcoal and labour to generate income. They are generally market dependant with weak purchasing power. The wealth ranking clearly indicates that those who are in the lower strata have less family members, and own few to no livestock, and therefore depend on labour and precarious agriculture. Lack of basic assets deters them from accessing sufficient food and basic services such as health and education opportunities. 3.6 Changes in Household Food Sources The graphs below summarise the annual relative contribution of each food source between the index year (2006) and 2008 for poor, medium and better off wealth groups. The graphs suggest that the poor wealth groups are the most food insecure, followed by the medium wealth group. Figure 18. Changes in Food Sources by Wealth Group (2006 & 2008)

Comparative food sources by wealth group show a particular situation. In the index year, all groups in both districts can ensure at least 60% of their food through own production (crops and livestock combined). At present, all of the groups require increased market purchase and labour exchange in addition to own production to achieve roughly 70% of their food needs. Middle households in Kaabong even add wild food consumption to reach just 60% of their food needs. In Kaabong too, the mention of relief aid as a food source is new to the better-off and has increased for both middle and poor households. Moroto shows similar tendency, where relief aid is new for middle households, but not yet mentioned for the better-off. This raises the question of whether inclusion error has allowed better-off Kaabong households to receive food aid unnecessarily. It is also interesting to note that middle households in Kaabong enjoy a higher ratio of food aid than poor households, whereas the opposite would be expected. Food aid in Moroto is roughly equal as a food source in poor and middle households. Gifts from family are generally greater at current than normally, reported by all households except the better-off in Kaabong. Gifts, however, contribute a greater proportion of food to middle households than poor households in both districts. Perhaps this greater access to kinship support is part of what distinguishes middle from poor households? Wild foods play an important role in the household diet in a normal year, but are reduced in 2008 for all categories of household in both districts. The availability of wild foods is related to the

Kaabong

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Normal Current Normal Current Normal Current

Poor Middle Better off

Moroto

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Poor Middle Better- off

Relief aid

Gift/familysupport

Wild food

Labourexchange

Purchase

Cropproduction

Livestockproduction


season and becomes scarce during dry seasons, reducing household access to food. Market purchase has increased for better-off households in both districts as a result of the significant decreases in livestock and crop production. At the same time, however, market purchase increases only marginally for poor and middle households in Kaabong and Moroto. Household inability to increase food through purchase could suggest that they are unable to access sufficient quantity and quality of food. But even for the better-off, high grain prices and negative changes to income sources (see below) will erode the purchasing power of these households and reduce access to food. Poor household access to livestock products (milk, blood, meat) is also curtailed with disruption of social safety nets as a result of raiding. Traditionally the better-off lend cattle for the poor to reproduce in exchange for the use of animal products. Even if late rains improve availability of pasture and water after an extended dry spell, household access to livestock products is reduced due to insecurity and livestock cordoning in kraal. A shift from own livestock production to dependence on markets weakens the resilience of these households. Insecure roads in poor condition, distance from major market centres, and seasonal high demand, among other factors, raise prices of staples in regional markets and erode the purchasing power of all households, weakening access to purchased food and affecting the poorest households most. 3.7 Changes in Household Income Sources The relative contributions of income from own production declined for all household types compared with the index year due to poor crop and livestock performance in 2008. The poor performance is caused by late onset of rain, insecurity from intensive raiding, and crop and livestock diseases. Figure 19. Changes in Income Sources by Wealth Group (2006 & 2008)

Similar to the food sources analysed above, the distribution of household income sources shows that all groups normally rely to varying degrees on their own livestock and crop production, which combined provides them with approximately 60% of their household income. At current, additional activities are used to diversify and thereby increase income at a time when livestock and agricultural production are diminished. Increased charcoal production is a key coping strategy for all groups at current, contributing up to roughly 30% of their income, more than double what it was for all households in the index year. Casual labour similarly has increased significantly for all groups in both districts as households endeavour to compensate for lost income from own production. Like charcoal production, the proportion of casual income labour has at least doubled in 2008 for all households in comparison with the index year. There is an interesting relationship between (handicraft) petty trade and what was termed “self-employment” (i.e. small businesses like kiosks). Petty trade is only reported by poor and middle households, whereas self employment (although reported by most) contributes a greater proportion of income for better-off households, then middle, and finally poor. Self employment is conspicuously important for better-off households in Moroto, which could be an indicator of greater resilience through the ability to rely successfully on what is normally a tertiary income source. In the same way that middle households enjoy greater access to food through kinship networks, this capacity of better-off households (especially in Moroto) to diversify their income sources could be part of what distinguishes them from the other wealth groups.

Kaabong

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Moroto

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Loans

Brew ing

Remittances

Causal labour

Charcoal/f irew ood salesPetty trade(handcraft)Self-employment(small business)Crop production

Livestockproduction


The importance of remittances remains largely unchanged throughout except for the better-off in both districts, for which the proportion of remittances has doubled. There is a curious gap, however, in Moroto middle households where remittances are reported in 2006 but not at present. On the contrary, the poor had no remittances in 2006, but remittances were reported in 2008. Another apparent gap is that better-off households in both Kaabong and Moroto do not engage in alcohol brewing, reported only by poor and middle households in both districts with only marginal changes in proportion (up in Kaabong, down in Moroto). If 2008 is as severe a year as popular perception makes it, one could expect that quete income would in fact decline for all producers due to reduced availability and increased prices of the necessary inputs, sorghum and sugar. That relative income from quete brewing has either increased or remained stable for the two of the three groups reporting it suggests that it remains a viable business even at a time when food security and livelihoods are stressed for all households in what is considered to be a “bad” year, even by the cyclical standards of Karamoja. Finally, in Kaabong, poor and middle households report loans as a new income source in the current year, not normally used and not reported by better-off households (who may be the ones offering credit, the conditions and origin of which are currently unclear). No loans of any type were reported in Moroto, although further investigation could prove this to be misleading. During the normal year, sales of agricultural products were the main sources of income for the majority of households across all wealth groups. Currently poor households derive 55% of their income from sale of charcoal and causal labour, while the middle and better-off obtain 35 and 20% of their income from these sources, respectively. The figure illustrates that their options to increase income are limited as most of the different income sources do not show any significant difference, limiting them to rely heavily on bush products and labour wages. However, the inability of district town markets to absorb the abundant supply of labour limits income from this source and results in high reliance on charcoal making and out-migration to more distant urban areas in neighbouring districts (captured in the data on casual labour and corroborated by that on coping strategies, below). Labour wage opportunities will be reduced because labour supplies exceed demand as the vital agriculture sector will not be functioning in full scale. This could gradually lead to a lack of employment opportunities and lower wage rates in the same manner that the high number of households burning charcoal will also reduce its value. Heavy reliance on bush products will negatively affect the ecosystem and could contribute to reduced crop and livestock productivity in the long-term. Excessive charcoaling over time similarly will lead to environmental degradation and aggravate existing vulnerability to climatic shocks. The destruction of fodder trees will have an especially immediate negative impact on livestock production, the main income source of much of the population. Limited income sources, combined with the currently high prices for staple foods (which are induced by insecurity, poor road conditions, and high demand) has strained purchasing power and limited household access to food, further contributing to their vulnerability to food insecurity. 3.8 Changes in Household Expenditure Changes in household expenditure patterns relate to their food and income sources and corroborate the conclusions already drawn from analysis of these above. As there is currently a strain in normal food and income sources, a shift in expenditure patterns between 2006 and 2008 is indicated across all wealth groups. As also introduced above, crop and livestock production have declined as both food sources and income sources. This forces households to increase dependency on markets to meet food needs. At the same time, income source declines will limit household ability to purchase sufficient food for the household, which could prove particularly problematic if own production as a food source is similarly constrained. Weak purchasing power will, in addition to creating food insecurity, limit household expenditure on basic services.


Figure 20. Changes in Expenditure by Wealth Group (2006 & 2008)

Analysis of changes in household expenditure shows that, for all groups in both districts, food expenditure has increased significantly and in most cases doubled. Kaabong households, however, still appear slightly stronger in the current situation, with food expenditure in Kaabong around 50% while households in Moroto are already at 60% in 2008. Expenditure on agricultural and livestock inputs, a proxy for household ability to invest in its food and income sources, changes according to wealth group. The poor are worst affected in that the proportion of their expenditure on inputs decreases by more than half, while there is a smaller decrease for middle households and no change for the better-off. By comparison, there is near complete uniformity in social service (education and health) expenditure within each wealth group in each year. Thus it is possible that coping strategies in response to food and income source declines are pursued not simply to meet food needs, but also to enable continued access to healthcare and education, as suggested by the expenditure data. Unfortunately, the expenditure categories used for proportional piling were too limited, in that all groups in all locations report “other” expenditure between 10% and 20%. Not only should this category be as small as possible, but there should be greater insight into what specifically is meant by other. It would be interesting, for example, to gauge both the degree and the changes in quete expenditure. Direct observation of any sub-county centre in Kaabong and Moroto will see women and men alike gathered around quete vendors throughout the day. Although a cup or jug costs only UGX 200 or 500, respectively, and although respondents might not reliably report their alcohol expenditure (especially in a focus group context), it is clear that the quete economy remains intact despite the reported negative impact of 2008 drought on food, income, and expenditure. The relative proportion of quete expenditure cannot be analysed at present, but household cash is nonetheless being diverted toward unproductive ends and must therefore be investigated further. The current increases on fuel and food prices will exacerbate the household impact of increased food expenditure, which will lead to further declines in purchasing power. The compounded result of this could negatively affect household food security by limiting food access, thereby fostering a gradual decline in livelihood assets, weakening household resilience, and ultimately prolonging recovery. 3.9 Changes in Household Coping Strategies The following figures illustrate different coping strategies adopted by different wealth groups in the normal and current year. Household coping strategies are a reflection of their food sources, income sources, and expenditure in relation to the scope and magnitude of a shock or strained situation. Both the poor and medium wealth groups have maximised on labour wages and charcoal burning compared to the normal year. This shows that both wealth groups have less diverse income and food sources, especially if compared with better-off households. Therefore during the current year there is greater reliance on bush product sales and migration for labour, in addition to external food aid.

Kaabong

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Moroto

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Otherexpenditure

Social services

Agropastoralinputs

Household items

Main food items


Figure 21. Changes in Coping Strategies by Wealth Group (2006 & 2008)

The two graphs illustrate the comparative variety and importance of coping strategies reported by focus (wealth) group participants in Kaabong and Moroto. Clearly the current situation is different for all the wealth groups compared to a normal year. For example all groups currently have significantly fewer sales of animal products and animals than they do normally. This might reflect a lack of animal products because of poor animal conditions (due to disease and drought), loss of animals (due to insecurity, raiding, and disease), or fewer animal sales (due to movement restrictions and quarantine). All households in both districts mention more migration than usual to find labour, as reflected in the greater importance of labour in the income source analysis, above. Reduction of meals is currently stronger for better-off households than for middle and poor households as compared to the normal year. External relief only appears in the current situation, with nobody reporting it in the index year. Finally, although the food, income, and expenditure data have corroborated each other there is a discrepancy in the issue of gifts and support from relatives. In food sources better-off Kaabong households reported no gifts in either year while better-off Moroto households reported that gifts were a food source only in 2008. Looking at the coping strategies, however, not only do all households in all locations cite gifts as an important strategy, but there appears to be little change between the index and current years. Further, the better-off Moroto households who reported gifts as a new food source in 2008 appear to contradict themselves by reporting less importance of gifts as a 2008 coping strategy. The question on what is considered a gift needs to be clarified, potentially not only food, but as well animals and other items are considered and would hence explain the discrepancy between gifts and food source. Although greater analysis will be required to resolve this question, it is nonetheless apparent that kinship support mechanisms are a central feature of the Karamoja livelihood landscape, a critical social asset – apparently for all wealth groups at all times. Generally, it is interesting to see that middle households have a more diversified coping strategy pattern than poor or even better-off households. It might be expected that better-off households would have more options available, although the opposite could equally be true: Perhaps the food and income sources of these households are sufficiently diverse or resilient that the range of coping strategies demonstrated by middle households is not necessary for better-off households. Indeed, this could be yet another feature that distinguishes wealth groups. More specifically, it is unusual not to have wild food consumption mentioned in the coping strategies, despite that it is reported in the food sources and is common across all groups at all times, albeit to different degrees. It is possible that the prevalence of wild foods means that they not considered by respondents as a coping strategy but rather as a normal food source or, for some items, even delicacies. Current coping strategies also include charcoaling and causal labour. This is followed by reduced expenditure on quantity of food taken and other acquisitions. Heavy dependence on bush product sales might offer temporary respite to a household but will also cause long term impact on the ecological and economic sustainability of the region.

Kaabong

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NormalPoor

Current NormalM iddle

Current NormalBetter-Off

Current

Moroto

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NormalPoor

Current NormalM iddle

Current NormalBetter-Off

Current

Relief food

Gift/family support

Non-productiveasset sale

Send children tobetter-o ff HHs

M igration (labour)

Charcoal/firewoodsale

Petty trade

Casual labour (food)

Reduce meals

Livestock sale

Livestock productsale

Reducepurchases/expenses


4. RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations recognise that some of the root causes of current food and livelihood insecurity in Karamoja (climatic variability, livestock raiding, and protected kraal) are beyond the scope of any one agency to address. The recommendations therefore are proposed as realistic and appropriate entry points for ACF food security and livelihood programming in the region. They build on the preceding analysis, but have also been informed by subsequent fieldwork, context analysis, and planning undertaken by ACF in Kaabong and Moroto districts since the assessment itself was concluded, and similarly reflect the initial analysis of nutrition and WASH data currently in hand. In addition to the specific interventions outlined here, longer term change will also be required in the historic underdevelopment of the region, its chronic insecurity and commensurate need for peace building, and possibly even small ruminant restocking once stability is achieved.

> To target those most vulnerable to food insecurity, interventions should prioritise households more dependent on agriculture before expending into livestock health initiatives.

> The existing OTP sites should provide a geographic and household entry point for ACF food security and livelihood programming in Karamoja, building on existing awareness of the agency and providing ready access to captive audiences waiting for treatment.

> Geographic and household targeting criteria should begin with an analysis of malnutrition data for greater relevance and guidance, such as utilising OTP enrolment trends to determine locations or communities with apparently higher malnutrition.31

> Demonstration gardens should be established at each OTP site in order to reach mothers of children admitted to the feeding program, then promoted at household level to offer and additional income and food source.

> Fuel efficient stoves and nutritious cooking demonstrations should also be promoted at each OTP site, and then promoted at household level to reduce fuel needs and encourage more nutritiously balanced food preparation.

> Increased agricultural production should be pursued through exposure and access to faster maturing and drought resistant varieties (such as sorghum, millet, maize, etc), complemented by training in cultivation techniques (such as rows, spacing, priming, etc).

> Field crop demonstration plots should be established or expanded at the OTP sites to promote particular varieties and practices aiming to increase agricultural production.

> Ongoing dialogue with NAADS should be formalised into an MOU for collaboration to add or complement existing demonstration sites and to identify active farmer groups who already have been mobilised and demonstrated their ability to work with outsiders.

> In addition the NAADS groups, ACF activities should endeavour to work through other existing groups before embarking on the formation of new groups.

> Income generating activities (with low environmental impact) and income diversification should be piloted to explore the dynamics of how individuals engage with the activity and how best to promote such activities on a larger scale in the future.

> As part of the IGA activities, ACF should investigate possibilities for value addition and marketing of livestock products (cheese, dried meet, skin, hooves, horns, etc).

> Agro-forestry should be explored as a pilot income generating activity that could both contribute to reducing demand on the limited supply of wood fuel in the region and offer a household source of nutritious (and marketable?) fruit.

31 This acknowledges that OTP data will indicate reported malnutrition rather than actual prevalence. That is, these communities/households may have greater access to or awareness of the OTPs, but may not necessarily be those where malnutrition is most severe.


> Additional studies on the complex issues of loaning systems and socio-economic importance aspects of quete in Karamojong society should be conducted to enhance understanding and identify potential intervention opportunities.

> Longer term access to savings microfinance should be explored as a pilot activity that could in future accompany different group activities or IGAs and offer an interesting comparison to ACF’s cash transfer programme in Lango sub-region.

> Over time, once ACF has established its FSL programming in Karamoja, it should consider strengthening animal production through community animal health workers, pastoralist field schools, or vaccination campaigns; these should be undertaken in coordination with the District Veterinary Offices in each district and sub-county. Strengthening the livestock sector may also contribute to the poorest households by creating income opportunities such as exchange of labour for animal products.

> ACF programming should build on its experience in the North to mobilise community participation and thereby nurture a shift away from food aid dependency toward greater household agency and ownership of activities.

> A long term perspective is required to offer any meaningful impact of ACF programmes on household food security or livelihoods; a sustained commitment to disaster risk reduction is highly recommended in this regard.

> Once FSL programmes are more firmly established in Karamoja, ACF should facilitate a focused advocacy campaign on the negative household impact of limited livestock mobility and the deleterious effects of cordoning livestock in densely populated kraal.

5. Conclusion

The results from the food security and livelihoods assessment in Karamoja give a good overview on the current situation. Certainly, several details and tendencies are still unclear and need to be further analysed and assessed. At this point of time, the assessment has been able to suggest various programme interventions which will support the commencement of ACF food security and livelihood activities in the Karamoja region. The report will as well be useful as a baseline for the coming years to provide comparison to changes in the food sources, income sources and expenditures. A follow up assessment could be suggested a year after ACF inventions have started to be implemented, as to provide some insight on the potential impact of ACF interventions, but as well potential socio-economic changes of the Karimojong society.


Appendix A: Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Data Analysis

Mission Uganda – Kampala Base

WATSAN Team Memorandum

From : WATSAN Coordinator

Date: 28 September 2008

To : Youcef Hamache (Desk Officer) Silke Pietzsch (FS Advisor) Pat Foley (FS Coordinator) Uma Palaniappan (NUT Coordinator) George Petropoulos (Head of Mission)

Copy: File

Re: 2008 Karamoja Data

Summary The drought-prone Karamoja region is characterized by poor access to sanitation (reported to be 9% across the region) and poor access to safe water (43%).32 These factors, coupled with the poor hygiene practices demonstrated in the region, contribute to a situation where a population vulnerable to livelihood shocks and malnutrition is at risk to morbidity and mortality from water and sanitation related illnesses. Thirteen sub-counties in the Moroto and Kaabong Districts, including Kaabong and Moroto town councils, were assessed by Action Against Hunger (ACF) from 1st to 15th of August, 2008. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) data collected during the August 2008 assessment indicate that water access across the area is very low for domestic/hygiene purposes, that only a small volume of water is stored inside the house, and that people travel long distance to collect water. • Households collect an average of 40 litres per day (an average of 5.7 l/p/d for a 7 person

household). • 89% of the households surveyed have 20 litres or less water stored in the household (2.8

litres per person, assuming a seven person household). • Households walk an average of 1.5 km and 1.0 km (for Kaabong and Moroto, respectively) to

reach their primary water point. Water for livestock purposes is primarily from open water sources (rivers and streams), with boreholes being a secondary source. Agriculture is almost wholly dependent on rainfall. In general, sanitation levels were very low, with compounds found to be very dirty, only a small %age of households with their own latrine, and open defecation common. The majority of the people (approximately 87%) defecate in the bush, with only a very small %age of respondents indicating that use a household latrine (12% and 7% for Kaabong and Moroto, respectively). The WASH data indicates that improvement is needed for hygiene practices related to safe water chain and hand washing. While the majority of people indicated that they wash their hands before eating (approximately 85%), only a small proportion mentioned washing their hands at other key times, such as after defecation (less than 4 %), and no respondent mentioned hand washing before food preparation

32 UNOCHA, Focus on Karamoja: Special Report No 2, Urgent Humanitarian Needs from August to October 2008


The findings indicate a need to improve water access, sanitation, and hygiene practices across the area surveyed. 1.0 Introduction This memorandum summarises the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) data collection activities carried out by Action Against Hunger (ACF) in Moroto and Kaabong Districts of the Karamoja Region of Uganda during July-August 2008. The WASH data collection effort was a sub-set of a wider food security assessment, which collected a comprehensive data set on the livelihood situation in the area, as well as nutrition information. The assessment findings are compiled into the report entitle “Karamoja Food Security and Livelihood Assessment Report, Kaabond and Moroto Districts” (2008 Karamoja FS Report) (ACF, 2008). This memorandum is intended to be an annex the 2008 Karamoja FS Report. The following sections present a brief background, the data collection methodology and preliminary results, as well as preliminary recommendations based on WASH data. 2.0 Background The drought-prone Karamoja region is characterised by poor access to sanitation (reported to be 9% across the region) and poor access to safe water (43%).33 These factors, coupled with poor hygiene practices related to lack of water, contribute to a situation where a population already vulnerable to livelihood shocks and malnutrition is made more susceptible to morbidity and mortality from water and sanitation related illnesses. ACF opened its Uganda programs in the Karamoja in 1980. However, to date, no documents have been located describing the type of WASH activities that were implemented at this time. ACF is currently implementing a nutrition program in Kaabong District that focuses on capacity building of government health staff. ACF plans to expand its nutrition activities into Moroto District in the coming months. 3.0 Methodology Thirteen sub-counties including Kaabong and Moroto town councils and 32 parishes were assessed from 1st to 15th of August, 2008. Locations are presented in Table 3.1, below. Table 3.1 – Assessment Locations

District Sub-county Parish KAABONG KAABONG T/C BIAFRA, KAMPSWAHILI, KOMURIA KALAPATA KAMION, KAPALATA, LOTIM KARENGA KARENGA, LOKORI, LOYORO LOLELIA KAIMESE, LOLELIA, LOTELEIT SIDOK KAKAMAR KAABONG Rural LOBONGIA, LOKERUI, LOKOLIA MOROTO IRIIRI IRIIRI, LORENGECORA, NABWAL LOTOME KALOKENGEL, LUMUNO, MORUONGOR NGOLERIET LOKORETO, NAITAKWAE, NAWAIKOROT KATIKEKILE LIA, TAPAC NADUNGET LOPUTUK, NADUNGET, NAITAKWAE RUPA MOGOTH, PUPU, RUPA

MOROTO T/C BOMA NORTH, BOMA SOUTH , NEW CAMPSWAHILI, OLD CAMPSWAHILI

WASH Information was collected via interviews with district officials, community leaders, and from community members during focus group discussions (by wealth group), as well as through observations on the sanitation conditions in the community. The 2008 Karamoja FS Report gives further detail on the selection of respondents. The WASH information collection was guided by a set of WASH questionnaires developed prior to survey implementation (contained in Addendum 1).



Observations on sanitary conditions were made in 128 locations, and WASH data was collected from 235 focus group discussions. Table 3.2 (separate file) lists the locations where this data was collected. In addition, informal discussions were held with Medair and Oxfam, who are also WASH actors in Kaabong and Moroto Districts, regarding the state of WASH in their area of implementation. The data was typed into an MS Access data base and analyzed in MS Excel and Access. Addendum 2 contains table of the raw data and Addendum 3 contains charts showing the results of the analysis. The key informant interview results are included in the annexes, but are not discussed in detail below as the data was inconsistent. 4.0 Results 4.1 – WASH Actors Table 4.1 – Who, What, Where Matrix for Karamoja.34

In addition, IRC is implementing WASH activities in Nakpiripirit, Moroto, and Koptito. The District government is also involved in the construction of boreholes and other WASH infrastructures, as well as their operation and maintenance.



4.2 – Water Questions Figure 4.1 – Primary Water Sources

Figure 4.2 – Use of Water Collected from Primary Water Sources

Approximately 78% of the respondents indicated that their primary water point is a borehole, and that they use this water point drinking and cooking. Fewer respondents also use this water point for washing and bathing, and all used different water point for livestock. Figure 4.3 – Secondary Water Sources

The main secondary water points consisted of rivers/streams (83% and 51% for Kaabong and Moroto, respectively) and boreholes (14% and 48% for Kaabong and Moroto, respectively).


Figure 4.4 – Water Point Maintenance

In general, the water points are not well maintained, with only 28 respondents indicated that their water point has a water committee. Figure 4.5 – Livestock Water Sources

The majority of respondents (68% and 69% for Kaabong and Moroto, respectively) indicated that use a river or stream for watering their livestock. The remainder indicated that they use a borehole, except for one respondent who uses a pothole. Nearly all respondents in the Key Informant interviews indicated that 100% of the agriculture was rain fed. Only one respondent in the focus group interviews indicated that their primary water point was also used for gardening. Table 4.2 (separate file) lists the locations of 105 borehole locations logged by Medair in five sub-counties in Kaabong District. Of these, 12 have been abandoned. A preliminary analysis of this data against population data provided from the Kaabong health department (in Table 4.3, separate file) shows water availability of 3 litres of water per person per day for drinking, cooking, and washing purposes (as shown in Table 4.4 below). This is well under to SPHERE guidance for minimum water needs of: 2.5-3 l/p/d for drinking and food, 2-6 l/p/d for basic hygiene, and 3-6 l/p/d for cooking, for a total of 7.5-15 l/p/d for all purposes. However, this is a rough estimate, and is likely subject to error do to imprecise population information (possibly inflated) and there may be additional protected water sources not listed by Medair.

Table 4.4 – Availability of Potable Water

Sub County Population #BH's liters/day* l/p/d

Kaabong Total 109,211 19 152,000 1.39 Kapedo 42,847 27 216,000 5.04


Karenga 36,211 33 264,000 7.29 Loyoto 31,522 8 64,000 2.03 Lolelia 28,408 6 48,000 1.69

Grand Total 248,199 93 744,000 3.00 * Assumes 8,000 liters of potable water per borehole.

This is consistent with respondent data indicating generally poor access to water across the two districts surveyed: • Households collect an average of 40 litres per day (an average of 5.7 l/p/d, assuming a

seven person household). • Households walk an average of 1.5 km and 1.0 km (for Kaabong and Moroto, respectively) to

reach the primary water point. • 89% of the households surveyed have 20 litres or less water stored in the household (2.8

litres per person, assuming a seven person household). Addendum 3 presents additional analysis of the water data by district, by sub-county, and by wealth group.

4.2 – Sanitation Questions Figure 4.6 – Place of Defecation

The majority of the people (approximately 87%) defecate in the bush, with a very small %age of respondents indicating that use a household latrine (12% and 7% for Kaabong and Moroto, respectively).

Key Points on Water • Poor access to water for domestic use.

There is a heavy reliance on boreholes for domestic water, however there is a low amount of water available to the population from the existing boreholes, people travel a great distance to collect water, not much water is collected, and not much water is stored inside the house.

• Streams/rivers are the primary sources of water for livestock, with boreholes a secondary source. More data needs to be collected on the seasonality of these water points

• Agriculture is dependent on rainfall.


Figure 4.7 – Reason for not having a household latrine

The most common reason given for now having a household latrine was that they could not afford a latrine. Sanitation observations of 21 latrines showed: • Only one latrine had a cover placed over the squat hole. • Only four latrines had anal cleansing materials available. • Feces were observed around ten of the latrines. • Ten of the latrines were not clean (feces on floor, etc). Other sanitation observations showed: • Human feces observed inside 45% of the compounds. • Animal feces observed inside 29% of the compounds. • Rubbish observed around 76% of the compounds. • The inside of 65% % of the houses and 83% of the kitchen places were perceived by the

surveyors to be dirty (however, the distinction between clean and dirty is not defined). • Stagnant water was only observed around 5% of the houses. Addendum 3 presents additional analysis of the sanitation data by district, by sub-county, and by wealth group.

Key Points on Sanitation • Very low latrine usage, majority of people using the bush. • Household latrines are perceived to be too expensive. • Kitchens, living areas, and compounds were found to be dirty.


4.3 – Hygiene Practices Questions Figure 4.8 – Hand Washing Practices

While the majority of people indicated that they wash their hands before eating (approximately 85%), only a small proportion mentioned washing their hands at other key times, such as after defecation, and no respondent mentioned hand washing before food preparation. Figure 4.9 – Dissemination of Hygiene Information

Most respondents received their health/hygiene information from health workers. Figure 4.10 – Health/Hygiene Messages Recalled

Other results from focus groups: • Most people (approximately 92%) do not treat their water before drinking. Of those who do,

all but one indicated that they boil their water.


Other results from the sanitation/hygiene observations: • Hand washing facilities were only present in 4% of the locations, however they all showed

signs of use. • Bath shelters and drying racks were not present in the majority of the locations (96% and

84%, respectively). • Majority of water storage containers were dirty (79%) and were not covered (83%). • Majority of the water collection containers were dirty (69%). • Majority of the households did not have a separate cup for drawing and drinking water

(85%), but only a few households had cups on the ground (34%). Addendum 3 presents additional analysis of the hygiene practice data by district, by sub-county, and by wealth group.

4.5 – General WASH Figure 4.11 – Main WASH needs (as expressed by focus groups)

Addendum 4 contains additional data collected during the assessment related to WASH in the Karamoja Region. 5.0 Discussion, Data Gaps, and Recommendations 5.1 – Discussion The WASH data collected during August 2008 indicate that water access across the area is very low for domestic/hygiene purposes, that there is low volume of water storage inside the house, and that people travel long distance to collect water. In additional observations from an Oxfam survey in the same area is that there are very few water storage containers inside the house (much less than the 40 litres per household recommended by SPHERE), and that perhaps people are unwilling to purchase durable goods like jerry cans because of the high incidence of theft. Water for livestock purposes is primarily from open water sources (rivers and streams), with boreholes being a secondary source, however, issues such as seasonality of water points, and migration/grazing patterns are not clear. In general, sanitation levels were very low, with compounds found to be very dirty, only a small %age of households with their own latrine, and open defecation is common. The WASH data indicates that some improvement is needed for hygiene practices related to safe water chain and hand washing.

Key Points on Hygiene Practices • Hand washing at key times (e.g., after defecation) is low, except for before eating. • Hygiene practices related to safe water chain are poor. • Most people get their health/hygiene messages from community health workers, but

these messages are limited in scope.


5.2 – Data Gaps The 2008 assessment collected preliminary data, thus some data gaps remain. Key data gaps are as follows: • Coordination: WASH coordinating bodies, guidelines, coverage areas and gaps. • Prevalence of water born disease: the data collected could not be analyzed due to the

amount of errors. • Hydrogeology/water usage of the area: water table, seasonality, sustainable extraction,

domestic and livestock usage, dry season coping strategies. • Hygiene/sanitation KAP: comprehensive data • Institution WASH: access to protected water points/latrine infrastructure in schools and

health centres - the data collected could not be analyzed due to the amount of errors. 5.3 – Recommendations Note that recommendation #1 and #2 can be implemented by the ACF WASH department, with help from the team already on the ground, while the recommendations #3-#5 would need additional support. 1) Improve understanding of stakeholders • Who, what, and where analysis of on-going and planned WASH activities by NGOs/CBOs,

District, UN, and others. • Coordination/information gathering with NGOs/CBOs (especially Medair and Oxfam), District

(especially Medair and Oxfam) to understand issues regarding inputs, sitting fees, and capacity building structures set up (spare parts networks, health/hygiene information dissemination, etc.).

• Assessment of community WASH priorities and inputs, seasonality of water point usage, and dry season coping mechanisms.

2) Complete needs assessment • Assessment of access to protected water points and sanitation infrastructure in schools and

health clinics. • Assessment of prevalence of water/sanitation-related diseases (diarrhoeas, malaria, etc.). 3) Improve access to water • Water point mapping - consolidation of existing information on borehole locations and state

of repair, data collection to identify non-borehole water points (dams, earthpans, etc.), identification of key water points.

• Analysis of the hydrogeological context to understand temporal water level changes and level of sustainable extraction.

• Assessment of community-built water points (earth pans, sand dams, etc.) for rehabilitation.

• Repair of damaged boreholes and community-built water points. 4) Reinforce/establish community management of water points • Training/retraining of water source committees. • Reinforcement of the Districts’ spare parts/pump mechanic networks in collaboration with

Medair and Oxfam. 5) Improve sanitation and hygiene conditions at home. • Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) survey over the area to understand the

communities’ behaviours regarding water use, sanitation, and hygiene. • Development of a water, sanitation, and hygiene module for a VHT and/or community

health care worker training that targets areas of behaviour change that will contribute to reducing water-borne diseases.

• Implementation of hygiene education program utilizing community health care workers. • Implementation of an environmental sanitation programme that promotes community-driven

changes in sanitation conditions (e.g. latrine building and garbage pit construction). • Hygiene kit distribution (jerrycans, soap, etc.).


5.4 – Additional Recommendations • Three month assessment (by consultant) to set up the health education approach. • Two month assessment (by consultant) to understand the dynamics of water access across

the regions, and to develop an appropriate approach for increasing water supply.


Appendix B: Seasonal Calendar


Appendix C: Livestock Migration Routes in Kaabong


Appendix D: Market Price Data (October 2008)

Item Unit Kaabong (UGX) Moroto (UGX)

2006 2008 2006 2008

Camel Female/Male X X 400,000 500,000-

600,000 Cow 200,000 300,000 250,000 300.000

Bull 250,000 400,000-450,000 250,000 400,000-450,000

Goat He 30,000 70,000-80,000 30,000 70,000-80,000

She 30,000 35,000-40,000 25,000 40,000

Sheep Ewe 12,000-15,000 25,000-30,000 12,000-15,000 25,000-30,000

Ram 40,000 50,000-60,000 40,000 50,000-60,000

Chicken Cock 3,000 7,000-8,000 3,000 7,000-8,000

Hen 2,000 5,000-6,000 2,000 5,000-6,000

Egg Piece 100 150-200 150 250

Donkey35 Female/Male 60,000 100,000 80,000-100,000 150,000

Pig Female 40,000 90,000 50,000 100,000

Ducks Female 5,000-6,000 7,000-8,000 3,500-4,000 7,000-8,000

Hide/Skin Kg 600 700 500 600-700 Milk Litre 600 1,500 600 1,500 Butter Litre 3,000 6,000 3,000 6,000

Sorghum36 100kg sack 50,000 80,000 50,000 80,000

Sorghum Can (2 litre?) 700-800 2,000-3,000 700-800 2,000

Maize Can (2 litre?) 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,800

Beans Kg 800 1,500 500 1,500

Millet flour Kg 2,000 2,800 1,600 2,400

G/nut Kg 2,000 3,000 1,500 2,000

Cassava Heap 500 1,500-2,000 500 1,500-2,000 Cassava flour Kg 400 800 400 800 Sweet Potatoes37 Heap 300 700 1,000 1,500

Maize meal Kg 500 1,200 600 1,200-1,400

Cooking oil Litre 2,500 5,000 2,500 4,500

Salt 250g 200-250 300 100 250

Tomatoes38 Heap 200 500 500 1,000 Onion Kg 2,400 3,000 2,000 2,500

Soap Bar 800 1,500-2,000 1.000 1,800

Rice Kg 1,000 1,800 1,200 2,000

Cabbage Piece 500-1,000 1,500-2,500 1,000 2,500

Sugar Kg 1,500 2,600 1,400 2,000

Tobacco Cone 4,000 8,000 3,500 5,000-5,500

Meat – goat Kg 1,500 3,000 1,500 3,000-3,200

Meat – cow Kg 1,200 2,500 1,200 2,500

Meat – pig Kg 1,500 3,000 2,000 3,000

Honey Litre 1,500 4,000 2,000 3,500 Turkey Bird 30,000 40,000 25,000 40,000 Charcoal Bag 6,000 10,000 8,000 12,000 Sticks Bundle 600 800-1,200 500 700-1,000

35 Moroto prices believed to be more reliable; obtained from donkey market. 36 There is an error somewhere in the sorghum prices; the problem may be in interpreting “cans” as a unit. 37 Produced in Kaabong but not in Moroto. 38 Probable differences in the interpretation of “heap”.


Appendix E: Long Term Average Rainfall for Karamoja

Location Mean Annual Rainfall (mm)

Standard Deviation

No. of Years of Record

Standard Error of Mean

Kaabong 693 - 10 - Kotido 698 219 12 63 Alerek 1,032 194 11 58 Moroto 896 227 43 35 Kangole 635 105 9 35 Matany 664 179 4 89 Lotome 660 140 16 35 Atumatak 750 201 38 33 Ngiminito 816 170 8 60 Nabilatuk 801 193 18 46 Iriiri 979 178 9 59 Amudat 640 165 20 37 Moruita 951 87 3 50 Napiananya 1,130 248 13 69 Namalu 1,271 271 24 55 Karita 1,054 260 16 65 Chepsikunya 692 - 2 -

Source: Wilson and Rowland (2001)

Appendix F: Normal and Current Year Comparison of Crop Productivity for assessed Districts Crop Productivity (kg/acre) Comparison for Kaabong District*

*2008 estimate Crop Productivity (kg/acre) Comparison for Moroto District*

Sub-County Parish

Maize Sorghum F.Millet Beans 2005 2008 2005 2008 2005 2008 2005 2008

Rupa Pupu 200 50 200 50 10 5 50 25 Rupa 100 20 200 20 50 50 50 10 Mogoth 100 50 200 120 10 20 25 5

Lotome Lomurno 100 25 100 20 25 20 Kalokengel 100 50 50 25 100 20

Nadunget Nadunget 100 50 50 20 50 20 50 20 Loputuk 100 50 50 25 100 50

Sub-County Parish Maize Sorghum F. Millet Beans

2005 2008 2005 2008 2005 2008 2005 2008 Karenga Karenga 100 50 200 25 - - 400 200

Loyoro 300 100 100 25 50 25 300 100 Kaabong Rural

Lokerui 100 50 50 25 50 25 25 10 Biafra 300 100 100 50 50 20 50 20

Lolelia Lolelia 100 50 100 60 100 60 - - Loteteleit 200 100 100 50 50 25 - - Kaimese 100 25 100 50 50 25 - -

Kalapata Timu 100 50 50 25 25 - 50 25 Kalapata 200 100 200 100 100 50 - -

Sidok Kakamar 200 100 100 50 100 25 100 25 Average 170 78 110 46 64 32 154 63

% Reduction 54% 58% 50% 59%


Naitakwae 200 20 100 25 100 5

Iriiri Iriiri 100 50 200 100 200 100 100 50 Lorengechora 200 100 200 50 100 50 100 50

Ngolereit Nawaikorot 200 100 200 50 50 25 Naitakwae 100 50 200 50 50 25 Lokoreto 100 50 100 50 50 25

Katikekile Tapac 100 50 100 50 Average 129 53 129 47 70 41 65 25

% Reduction 58% 64% 42% 61% *2008 estimate Appendix G: Decadal Population and Livestock Numbers for Karamoja

Year Population Cattle Goats Sheep TLU/Capita* 1959 170,000 600,000 210,000 160,000 2.69 1969 260,000 670,000 275,000 240,000 2.00 1980 350,000 300,000 170,000 330,000 0.74

Sources: Novelli (1999) Karamojong Traditional Religion: A Contribution. Comboni Missionaries, Kampala, Uganda. *TLU conversion factor: cattle (0.7) and shoats (0.1). Appendix H: Data Collection Tools Six separate data collection tools were utilised for the assessment (attached separately): 1. District key informant 2. Community level 3. Wealth group 4. Markets and traders 5. WASH district level 6. WASH wealth group

Date post:	10-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	action-against-hunger-acf-usa
View:	1,048 times
Download:	0 times

ACF Karamoja FS Assessment Report Final

Documents