DOCSLIB.ORG

Kapoeta Road Monitoring Cross-Border Population Movement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kapoeta Road Monitoring Cross-Border Population Movement Cross-Border Population Movement South Sudan Displacement Crisis Kapoeta Road Monitoring May 2021 Kapoeta South County, Eastern Equatoria State, South Sudan ‡ ‡ CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY Sudan Main movement out of INBOUND TO SOUTH SUDAN OUTBOUND FROM SOUTH SUDAN South Sudan from or Kapoeta town is located in Kapoeta South County, Eastern Equatoria State, through Kapoeta Town near South Sudan’s border with Kenya. Since the beginning of the crisis in Ethiopia Main movement into 69% of total inbound HHs reported that they intended to stay in 92% of total outbound HHs reported that they intended to stay in their South Sudan from or South Sudan in December 2013, Kapoeta town has been a gateway through C.A.R. through Kapoeta Town their destination for 6 months or more. destination for 6 months or more. which many internally displaced persons (IDPs) have passed on their way to Lopa refugee camps in Kenya. D.R.C. Kenya Uganda Kapoeta Demographics Demographics This factsheet provides results from the REACH road monitoring exercise Kapoeta East in Kapoeta town. REACH monitors two bus/car parks where travellers are Lafon North travelling to and from Torit/Juba and Narus/Kakuma, in order to record the Children 58% Children 59% 8% Kapoeta South arrivals and departures of households (HHs) on a daily basis. Daily data To/From Juba 58% 45% Kapoeta Women 26% Women 24% is synthesized into a monthly factsheet to provide an overview of wider 25% Town 6% movement trends, including push/pull factors, vulnerabilities and intentions. Men 16% Men 17% The following findings are based on primary data collected over 14 days Torit 8% between 3 and 31 May 2021. Budi Kenya 58+26+16I 59+24+17I 25% Not all entry points to Kapoeta town were covered systematically, and some 79% of inbound households were partial households.5 83% of outbound households were partial households.5 arrivals and departures reportedly took place outside of data collection 18% hours (7:30 am - 5:30 pm). As a result, data presented in this factsheet Magwi Ikotos does not capture all population movements and, as such, findings are not Previous locations in Kenya Previous location in South Sudan representative but rather indicative only of broader population movement Primary reported locations from which inbound HHs were leaving: Primary reported locations from which outbound HHs were leaving:6 58+25+8 trends for the assessed population. 56+44 Uganda Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement 56% Kapoeta South County 58% Kakuma Refugee Camp 44% Juba County 25% GENERAL MOVEMENT TRENDS Lafon County 8% Average daily number of individuals inbound to (grey) and outbound from (red) South Sudan with the intention to stay in their final destination for more than 1 Intended destination in South Sudan six months recorded in Kapoeta Town from June 2020 to May 2021: Intended destination in other countries 15 Primary reported intended destinations for inbound HHs: 45+25+17 Primary reported intended destinations for outbound HHs: Net Population Outflows Juba County 45% 50+50 12 Net Population Inflows Kakuma Refugee Camp 50% Torit County 25% Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement 50% 9 Ikotos County 18% 6 Push factors Pull factors Primary reported push factors for inbound HHs to leave their last location: Primary reported pull factors for outbound HHs to go to another country: 42+42+13 56+15+11 Avg. daily number of people Avg. 3 Distance from family/home 56% Proximity to family/home 42% Presence of education services 42% 0 Lack of education services 14% Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Lack of food 11% Perceived availability of food 17% Type of movement‡ Vulnerabilities3 Total monthly number of HHs and individuals recorded in May 2021: Reasons for coming to South Sudan Reasons for leaving South Sudan HHs Individuals %2 65% of total inbound HHs reported that at least one member of the HH Primary reported pull factors for inbound HHs, February to May 2021:3 Primary reported push factors for outbound HHs, February to May 2021:3 Inbound to South Sudan 80 285 43% had a vulnerability, including:4 February March April May February March April May Outbound from South Sudan 12 42 6% 38+14 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 Breastfeeding 39% Internal movement within South Sudan 94 215 51% Proximity to Distance from Separated/unaccompanied child 13% 55% 49% 51% 56% 55% 49% 21% 42% Self-reported refugees family/ home family/home Proportion of inbound (left) and outbound (right) HHs who self-reported having refugee status in another country: 50% of total outbound HHs reported that at least one member of the HH Presence of had a vulnerability, including:4 19% 8% 11% 14% Lack of education 47% 14% 36% 42% education serivces 50 Inbound Outbound Breastfeeding 50% 83% Perceived availability 99% 13% 24% 24% 14% Lack of food 33% 50% 43% 17% of food Notes: 1. Due to the COVID-191 pandemic and national+99+I border83+ closures, the daily number17+I of individuals inbound to (grey) and outbound from (red) South Sudan with the intention to stay in their final destination for more than six months recorded in Kapoeta Town dropped to on average zero arrivals and departures in the months of April to July 2020. 2. This percentage represents the percent of households, not the percent of individuals. 3. Unless otherwise specified, these figures reflect trends for all HHs interviewed, regardless of the length of time that the HHs are planning to stay at the destination. 4. Respondents were able to select multiple answers. 5 Partial HHs are those where not all members of the self-identified family unit were reportedly travelling. Please note, family units in South Sudan often extend beyond the nuclear family. 6. In addition, 8% of households also reported leaving from Torit county. ‡. Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer, so responses may not add up to 100% exactly. For more information on this profile please contact: REACH - [email protected] .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mining in South Sudan: Opportunities and Risks for Local Communities
    » REPORT JANUARY 2016 MINING IN SOUTH SUDAN: OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF SMALL-SCALE AND ARTISANAL GOLD MINING IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EQUATORIA STATES, SOUTH SUDAN MINING IN SOUTH SUDAN FOREWORD We are delighted to present you the findings of an assessment conducted between February and May 2015 in two states of South Sudan. With this report, based on dozens of interviews, focus group discussions and community meetings, a multi-disciplinary team of civil society and government representatives from South Sudan are for the first time shedding light on the country’s artisanal and small-scale mining sector. The picture that emerges is a remarkable one: artisanal gold mining in South Sudan ‘employs’ more than 60,000 people and might indirectly benefit almost half a million people. The vast majority of those involved in artisanal mining are poor rural families for whom alluvial gold mining provides critical income to supplement their subsistence livelihood of farming and cattle rearing. Ostensibly to boost income for the cash-strapped government, artisanal mining was formalized under the Mining Act and subsequent Mineral Regulations. However, owing to inadequate information-sharing and a lack of government mining sector staff at local level, artisanal miners and local communities are not aware of these rules. In reality there is almost no official monitoring of artisanal or even small-scale mining activities. Despite the significant positive impact on rural families’ income, the current form of artisanal mining does have negative impacts on health, the environment and social practices. With most artisanal, small-scale and exploration mining taking place in rural areas with abundant small arms and limited presence of government security forces, disputes over land access and ownership exacerbate existing conflicts.
    [Show full text]
  • Cholera in South Sudan Situation Report # 96 As at 23:59 Hours, 6 to 12 October 2014
    Republic of South Sudan Cholera in South Sudan Situation Report # 96 as at 23:59 Hours, 6 to 12 October 2014 Situation Update As of 12 October 2014, a total of 6,141 cholera cases including 139 deaths (CFR 2.26%) had beenTable reported1. Summary in of South cholera Sudan cases asreported summarized in Juba in County Tables, 23 1 April and –2.12 October 2014 New New New deaths Total cases Total Total admisions discharges Total Total cases Reporting Sites 6 to 12 Oct currently facility community Total cases 6 to 12 Oct 6 to 12 Oct deaths discharged 2014 admitted deaths deaths 2014 2014 JTH CTC 2 2 0 0 16 0 16 1468 1484 Gurei CTC (changed to ORP) Closed 28 July 2 0 2 365 367 Tongping CTC 0 2 1 3 69 72 Closed August Jube 3/UN House CTC Closed August 0 0 0 0 97 97 Nyakuron West CTC Closed 15 July 0 0 0 18 18 Gumbo CTC Closed 5 July 0 0 0 48 48 Nyakuron ORP Closed 5 July 0 0 0 20 20 Munuki ORP Closed 5 July 0 0 0 8 8 Gumbo ORP Closed 15 July 0 3 3 67 70 Pager PHCU 0 0 0 0 1 5 6 42 48 Other sites 0 0 0 1 15 16 1 17 Total 2 2 0 0 22 24 46 2203 2249 N.B. To prevent double counting of patients, transferred cases from ORPs to CTCs are not counted in the ORPs. Table 2: Summary of cholera cases reported outside Juba County, 23 April – 12 October 2014 New New New Total cases Total Total admisions discharges deaths Total Total cases Total States Reporting Sites currently facility community 6 to 12 Oct 6 to 12 Oct 6 to 12 deaths discharged cases admitted deaths deaths 2014 2014 Oct 2014 Kajo-Keji civil hospital 0 0 0 0 3 4 7 86 93 CES Yei Hospital --
    [Show full text]
  • South Sudan Country Operational Plan (COP)
    FY 2015 South Sudan Country Operational Plan (COP) The following elements included in this document, in addition to “Budget and Target Reports” posted separately on www.PEPFAR.gov, reflect the approved FY 2015 COP for South Sudan. 1) FY 2015 COP Strategic Development Summary (SDS) narrative communicates the epidemiologic and country/regional context; methods used for programmatic design; findings of integrated data analysis; and strategic direction for the investments and programs. Note that PEPFAR summary targets discussed within the SDS were accurate as of COP approval and may have been adjusted as site- specific targets were finalized. See the “COP 15 Targets by Subnational Unit” sheets that follow for final approved targets. 2) COP 15 Targets by Subnational Unit includes approved COP 15 targets (targets to be achieved by September 30, 2016). As noted, these may differ from targets embedded within the SDS narrative document and reflect final approved targets. Approved FY 2015 COP budgets by mechanism and program area, and summary targets are posted as a separate document on www.PEPFAR.gov in the “FY 2015 Country Operational Plan Budget and Target Report.” South Sudan Country/Regional Operational Plan (COP/ROP) 2015 Strategic Direction Summary August 27, 2015 Table of Contents Goal Statement 1.0 Epidemic, Response, and Program Context 1.1 Summary statistics, disease burden and epidemic profile 1.2 Investment profile 1.3 Sustainability Profile 1.4 Alignment of PEPFAR investments geographically to burden of disease 1.5 Stakeholder engagement
    [Show full text]
  • South Sudan Crop Watch Updated to 2Nd Dekad of July 2015
    South Sudan Crop Watch Updated to 2nd dekad of July 2015 Disclaimer: The authors of the working paper would like to acknowledge the technical difficulties in conducting this analysis within a highly complex context. This report provides a first step in understanding the status of food crops in South Sudan. The information and views set out in this working paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of FAO. In Greater Equatoria, production prospects for first season crops to be harvested in August/September are mixed, due to dry weather conditions affecting several areas. Planted area severely reduced in most conflict-affected counties due to worsening security conditions and massive displacement. This document aims to periodically provide a general outlook on the condition of food crops in South Sudan. The analysis is based on several remote sensing products, such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), the Vegetation Health Index (VHI) and, in particular, the FAO Agricultural Stress Index (ASI)1. The peculiarity of ASI is to focus on water stress specifically in agricultural areas, while other remote sensing products cover vegetation and rainfall across the country. The information from satellite imagery is then cross-checked with evidence from the field – e.g. crop planting and harvest assessments - along with data on rainfall amounts provided by several automatic weather stations and rain gauges located across the country. The lack of long-term series of rainfall data as well as problems to access information in most conflict-affected areas limit the depth of the analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • South Sudan Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Report — Lakes State, Western and Eastern Equatoria
    South Sudan water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) Report — Lakes State, Western and Eastern Equatoria January 2021 South Sudan WASH Report — Lakes State, Western and Eastern Equatoria Cover photo credit: Gatbel Chany, 2021 About REACH REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. The methodologies used by REACH include primary data collection and in-depth analysis, and all activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. REACH is a joint initiative of IMPACT Initiatives, ACTED and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research - Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNITAR-UNOSAT). For more information please visit our website: www.reach-initiative.org. You can contact us directly at: geneva@reach- initiative.org and follow us on Twitter @REACH_info. 1 South Sudan WASH Report — Lakes State, Western and Eastern Equatoria CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 4 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Access to water ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights On
    A/HRC/28/49 Advance Unedited Version Distr.: General 9 March 2015 Original: English Human Rights Council Twenty-eighth session Agenda items 2 and 10 Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General Technical assistance and capacity-building Report on the human rights situation in South Sudan Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights* Summary The present report is submitted pursuant to the Human Rights Council resolution 26/31, requesting the High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor the human rights situation in South Sudan and to report thereon to the Council at its twenty-eighth session, with recommendations on technical assistance measures, including on human rights education, to overcome challenges in the areas of security, accountability and transitional justice. This report was prepared in cooperation with the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), and covers the period from 15 August to 15 December 2014. At the Council’s twenty-seventh session in September 2014, the High Commissioner submitted a report on the situation of human rights in South Sudan covering the period from 8 May to 8 August 2014. The situation of human rights in South Sudan remained of serious concern during the reporting period. Civilians continued to bear the brunt of the ongoing armed conflict and of their leaders’ failure to stop the fighting. While the scale and severity of the conflict declined, the numbers of civilians displaced across the country has continued to rise, with no likelihood that people will be able to return to their homes soon.
    [Show full text]
  • Burden of Trachoma in Five Counties of Eastern Equatoria State, South Sudan: Results from Population-Based Surveys
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Burden of trachoma in five counties of Eastern Equatoria state, South Sudan: Results from population-based surveys Angelia M. Sanders1*, Aisha E. P. Stewart1, Samuel Makoy2, Joy J. Chebet3, Peter Magok3, Aja Kuol2, Carla Blauvelt3, Richard Lako2, John Rumunu2, E. Kelly Callahan1, Scott D. Nash1 1 Trachoma Control Program, The Carter Center, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, 2 South Sudan Ministry of Health, Government of the Republic of South Sudan, Juba, Republic of South Sudan, 3 The Carter a1111111111 Center-South Sudan, The Carter Center, Juba, Republic of South Sudan a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract Background OPEN ACCESS In order to decrease the prevalence of trachoma within the country, the Republic of South Citation: Sanders AM, Stewart AEP, Makoy S, Sudan has implemented components of the SAFE strategy in various counties since 2001. Chebet JJ, Magok P, Kuol A, et al. (2017) Burden of trachoma in five counties of Eastern Equatoria Five counties in Eastern Equatoria state were surveyed in order to monitor progress of pro- state, South Sudan: Results from population-based grammatic interventions and determine if additional rounds of Mass Drug Administration surveys. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11(6): e0005658. with azithromycin were needed. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005658 Editor: Mathieu Picardeau, Institut Pasteur, Methodology/ Principal findings FRANCE Five counties (Budi, Lafon, Kapoeta East, Kapoeta South and Kapoeta North) were surveyed Received: December 19, 2016 from April to October 2015. A cross-sectional, multi-stage, cluster-random sampling was Accepted: May 23, 2017 used. All present, consenting residents of selected households were examined for all clinical Published: June 14, 2017 signs of trachoma using the World Health Organization (WHO) simplified grading system.
    [Show full text]
  • Youth LEAD Baseline Assessment
    Youth LEAD Baseline Assessment Eastern Equatoria, Upper Nile & Jonglei States Prepared for UNICEF South Sudan Conducted by Forcier Consulting Youth LEAD Baseline Assessment: Eastern Equatoria Upper Nile Jonglei Prepared for: UNICEF South Sudan Prepared by: Natalie Forcier Nadia Kevlin Evan Callis Benedicte Bakkeskau Amy Hall June 2012 Acknowledgements The cooperation and assistance of several organizations and individuals were crucial in the implementation of this baseline assessment, and thus the research team would like to extend their sincere gratitude to the following: H.E. Brigadier General Louis Lobong Lojore, Governor of Eastern Equatoria State H.E. Titos Lokwacuma Loteam, Commissioner of Kapoeta East County H.E. Joseph Napengiro Lokolong, Commissioner of Budi County H.E. Kuol Manyang Juuk, Governor of Jonglei State H.E. Colonel Isaac Kuach Duoth, Commissioner of Nyirol County H.E. Tut Puok Nyang, Commissioner of Uror County H.E. Brigadier General Simon Kun Puoch, Governor of Upper Nile State H.E. Dak Tap Chuol, Commissioner of Nasir County H.E. Peter Chuol Biel, Commissioner of Ulang County Pelucy Ntambirweki, UNICEF Fred Ogwal, UNICEF Jairus Ligoo, UNICEF Sophie Busi, UNICEF Finally, on behalf of Forcier Consulting and the research team, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the citizens who volunteered their time to participate in this important assessment. Natalie Forcier Managing Director Forcier Consulting July 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humanitarian Situation Monitoring Central and Eastern Equatoria States - South Sudan April - September 2020
    Humanitarian Situation Monitoring Central and Eastern Equatoria States - South Sudan April - September 2020 Introduction Map 1: REACH assessment coverage of the CES and EES, April (A), June (B) and September The second (Q2) and third (Q3) quarter of 2020, were largely defined by restricted cross-border (C) 2020 and inter-state movement as a COVID-19 preventive measure, climatic changes, and pockets of insecurity, as well as continuing currency depreciation and rising prices on the market. These A B developments have likely continued to drive humanitarian needs across Central Equatoria State (CES) and Eastern Equatoria State (EES). As insufficient regular assessments are conducted in these regions due to access and resource constraints, limited accurate information is available to humanitarian actors to inform their response. To inform humanitarian actors, REACH has conducted assessments of hard-to-reach areas in South Sudan since December 2015. Data is collected on a monthly basis through interviews with key informants with knowledge of a settlement. This Situation Overview uses this data to analyse changes in observed humanitarian needs across CES and EES in the second and third quarter of 2020. Methodology C To provide an indicative overview of the situation in hard-to-reach areas of Central and Eastern Equatoria States, REACH conducts interviews with key informants (KIs) who have recently arrived from, recently visited, or receive regular information from a settlement or “Area of Knowledge” (AoK). Information for this report was collected from key informants in Kapoeta Town covering EES and remotely by phone call from Juba covering CES, between April and September 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Equatoria State SOUTH SUDAN
    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION REPORT Eastern Equatoria State SOUTH SUDAN Bureau for Community Security South Sudan Peace and Small Arms Control and Reconciliation Commission United Nations Development Programme The Bureau for Community Security and Small Arms Control under the Ministry of Interior is the Government agency of South Sudan mandated to address the threats posed by the proliferation of small arms and community insecurity to peace and development. The South Sudan Peace and Reconciliation Commission is mandated to promote peaceful co-existence amongst the people of South Sudan and advises the Government on matters related to peace. The United Nations Development Programme in South Sudan, through the Community Security and Arms Control Project, supports the Bureau strengthen its capacity in the area of community security and arms control at the national, state, and county levels. Cover photo: © UNDP COMMUNITY CONSULTATION REPORT Eastern Equatoria State South Sudan Published by: South Sudan Bureau for Community Security and Small Arms Control South Sudan Peace and Reconciliation Commission United Nations Development Programme MAY 2012 JUBA, SOUTH SUDAN CONTENTS Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... i Foreword ........................................................................................................................... .ii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humanitarian Situation Monitoring Eastern Equatoria State - South Sudan October - December 2020
    Humanitarian Situation Monitoring Eastern Equatoria State - South Sudan October - December 2020 Introduction Map 1: REACH assessment coverage of the EES, October (A), November (B) and December The last quarter (Q4) of 2020 was characterised by cross-border movement and food insecurity (C) 2020: driven by insecurity, flooding and declined crop production. Climatic changes further affected access to basic services, such as clean drinking water and solid shelter structures, and insecurity A B hindered people accessing markets and preferred water sources. In addition, COVID-19 related restrictions continued to negatively impact access to basic services, increasing the vulnerability of people living in Eastern Equatoria State (EES) and their need of humanitarian assistance. Kaoeta Kaoeta North afon Kaoeta ast afon North As insufficient regular assessments are conducted across the region due to access and resource Kaoeta ast constraints, limited accurate information is available to humanitarian actors to inform their response. Kaoeta outh Kaoeta outh To inform humanitarian actors, REACH has conducted assessments of hard-to-reach areas in Torit Budi Torit Budi otos South Sudan since December 2015. Data is collected on a monthly basis through interviews with otos awi key informants (KIs) with knowledge of a settlement. This Situation Overview uses this data to awi analyse changes in observed humanitarian needs across EES in Q4 of 2020. Methodology C To provide an indicative overview of the situation in hard-to-reach areas of CES, REACH Kaoeta conducts interviews with KIs who have recently arrived from, recently visited, or receive afon North Kaoeta regular information from a settlement or “Area of Knowledge” (AoK).
    [Show full text]
  • Key Informant Interview Check List
    South Sudan Annual Needs and Livelihoods Assessment, 2009/2010 Eastern Equatoria State Report A collaborative assessment by: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MOAF) World Food Programme (WFP) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Southern Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (SSRRC) CARITAS Swiss and Luxembourg Lutheran World Federation (LWF) Catholic Relief Services Sudan Programme (CRS) United Ministry of Food & South Sudan South Sudan Luthern CARITAS Swiss Catholic Relief Nations Agriculture Agriculture Commission Relief & World and Luxembourg Services Sudan World food Rehabilitation Organization for Census, Rehabilitation Federation Programme Programme and Forestry Statistics and Commission Evaluation NOTE ON MAPS The boundaries and names shown on the maps and tables and which appear in the narrative of this document are approximate and do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. The maps were produced by the Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) Unit of WFP South Sudan. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WFP and FAO are greatly indebted to all the ministries, NGOs, UN agencies, local authorities and individuals who participated in planning and conducting this assessment, and provided information that formed the basis of this report. ii LIST OF ACRONYMS ANLA Annual Needs and Livelihoods Assessment CFSAM Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission CRS Catholic Relief Services FAO Food and Agriculture Organization IDP Internally Displaced Person LWF Lutheran World Federation SMAARF State Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Forestry NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index NCA Norwegian Church Aid NGO Non Governmental Organization RRC Relief and Rehabilitatio Commission(UNMIS) SDG Sudanese Pound SSRRC South Sudan Relief and Reconstruction Commission UN United Nations UNMIS United Mission in Sudan VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping WFP World Food Programme iii 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]