Table 5.2: Social issues, their impacts and indicators in South Sudan Agriculture Social issue Impact Mitigation strategies Indicator Resource poor farmers not able to access extension services and agricultural inputs: (i) Cost of extension service too high (ii) Lack of credit and services (iii) Lack of farm inputs (iv) Lack of sufficient service providers (v) Distance to service provider (i) Food insecurity at house hold level (ii) Poverty (i) Use of contract service providers (ii) Subsidy on farm inputs by the government (iii) Use radios, TV, and internet services and mobile SMS in passing on messages (iv) demonstration of technologies, use participatory methods of technology transfer The number of small scale farmers adopting agriculture technology through extension services providers Developed agricultural research technologies are no monitored for adoption, impacts on people’s livelihoods and environmental management (i) Research fails to transform livelihood of the poor (ii) Poor adaptation and utilization of agriculture technology (iii) Inability to scale-up best practices (i) Use of contract service providers (ii) Subsidy on farm inputs by the government (iii) Use radios, TV, and internet services and mobile SMS in passing on messages (iv) Group demonstration of technologies, use participatory methods of technology transfer (i) Number of agriculture technology initiatives that are farmer demand driven (ii) Adequate community representation in all consultative foray (i) Women have inadequate access to and control of production resources even though they play a critical role in agriculture (ii) No ownership of land (iii) No control of production or access to markets (iv) No voice in decision making regarding agricultural technologies and policies at farm level (v) Lack of credit facilities (vi) Cultural gender bias (i) Poor adoption of agriculture technology (ii) Increased household food insecurity (iii) Lack of control to productive resources and reduced productivity (i) Change in land use policy (ii) Gender mainstreaming through training (i) % of women participating in decision making and consultative fora (ii) % of women accessing extension services and controlling benefits accrued from Agriculture Indigenous people (e.g. the Abangani people in Ezo county, Andali Payam, Western Equatoria) (i) Poverty (ii) Livelihood insecurity (i) Change in land use policy (ii) Gender mainstreaming through training (i) Number of projects that target benefits for indigenous peoples
Lack of adequate capacity for environmental and social screening of small-scale activities may exacerbate existing environmental and social issues affecting communities within the target areas. South Sudan lacks adequate qualified staff and mechanisms for the screening and mitigation of impacts induced from its activities. This is especially important since programs will be community driven where such expertise may be lacking. This may exacerbate current environmental stress. MAG should include a component for training and capacity building for community groups and associations to prioritize their needs and manage the environmental and social aspects of the local government officials and other service providers to assist communities in preparation of project proposals, and to appraise, approve and supervise implementation of projects. Alternative livelihoods like fish farming, bee keeping, intensification of agricultural production may result in improved and may also lead to an increase in areas brought under cultivation and overall numbers of livestock. Improved access to markets may increase incentives to increase under production or increase animal numbers. Although alternative livelihood strategies will seek to strengthen and add to existing systems, MAF needs to call for an integrated systems to ensure counter measures to secure the natural resources base. There are a significant number of NGOs and Development agency financed projects in South Sudan with considerable rural development experience, and may feel threatened by MAF if not effectively included in the process. The institutional authority, position and financial size of MAF is significant in comparison to the smaller scale NGO and development projects in rural areas. This may have implications for the relation between government administrations and NGOs, between existing projects, and communities, and among staff of government and NGOs. MAF will work to build capacity within national, provincial, and community administrations, and continue the collaborative approach; and consider making use of NGOs as service providers, in addition to private sector contractors where appropriate. Rising population pressures, inter tribal conflicts, deteriorating resource base and increasing intensification of the traditional production systems have led to an increase in the number of land-related conflicts, and introduction of investments in such areas may attract outside migrants that will increase pressure on existing resources. MAF investments may serve to bring back those who had migrated out in search of income earning alternatives into the recipient communities and they will also seek to benefit from the improvements. This could lead to friction or conflict and put additional pressure on limited resources. MAF will continue to work carefully with communities to devise measures to support sustainable investments and ensure the inclusion of migrants into communities. funded
Table 6: Issues Addressed by ESMF Issue Mainstreaming of Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Action 1. Requirements for mainstreaming of the ESMF a. Appoint County personnel b. Annual environmental and social progress report. a. MoE/MAF Secretariat of the ESMF b. Independent consultant 2. Weak capacity for environmental and social management at and county levels a. Develop partnerships with. NGOs and CBOs for environmental and social management; b. Stimulate the operation of Payam and County Farmers fora. a. MoE/MAF national Secretariat b. County officials c. NGOs 3. Opportunity to contribute to positive impact on natural resource management a. Assign sufficient budget for support to program activities a. National MoE/MAF Secretariat 4. Mainstreaming WB safeguard policies in the operational areas a. Provide sufficient training and support to county officials to understand and apply WB safeguard policies a. National MoE/MAF Secretariat 5. Cumulative impacts on some environmental resources a. Carry out assessments of cumulative impacts on ground water, surface water resources, pastoral resources and biodiversity. b. Sensitize farmer groups on issue of cumulative impacts a. NGOs 6. Optimum integration of technical advice with a demand-driven, participatory approach a. Sensitize communities to the range of technical advice available and their responsibility to choose which technical advice they require a. County agriculture and forestry assistant commissioners b. Extension officers c. NGOs 7. Need to provide advice on relevant environmental laws to communities a. Provide information on relevant environmental laws to farmer groups and local communities a. National MoE/MAF Secretariat and County assistant commissioners for agriculture and forestry
this list of criteria, a set of indicators will be integrated into recording forms to be used in a participatory approach to environmental monitoring and evaluation. 6.6.1 Initial Proposals Social Indicator Methods Responsibility Frequency Demography Census of farmers NGOs, County assistant commissioners Once/year No. of farmers trained on environmental issues in the county Training records NGOs, County assistant commissioners Twice/year % of communities adopting environmental conservation measure survey NGOs, County assistant commissioners Relative increase in income from crops Household survey NGOs, County assistant commissioners Twice/year Vulnerable groups involved in identified alternative livelihood practices Household survey NGOs, County assistant commissioners Twice/year Number of training sessions held on use of fertilizers and chemicals and IPM Training records County assistant commissioners Monthly Number of social categories represented in the training sessions Training records County assistant commissioners Monthly
Yambio County Western Equatoria State, Joseph Eriminio Abiambu Yambio Senior Conservator of forests, Yambio County Anthony Tungo Peter Yambio County Rimenze Boma Bangusu Payam Western Equatoria State Agricultural Extension worker for Bangusu Payam, Yambio County Western Equatoria Rev. Elinama Phillimon ECS Deanary Makpandu Rimenze Boma Bangasu Payam Yambio County Director MAF, Western Equatoria Western Equatoria Yambio PIU staff MAF Juba Bedilu Amare World Bank Environmental Specialist World Bank