Photo credential: Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources

WASH Rapid Technical Assessment Report VANUATU: EL NINO 19th October – 30th November 2015

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

KEY FINDINGS 1. 40% of communities surveyed expect to run out of safe drinking water within 14 days of the assessment, forcing communities to unsafe water sources or to migrate to safe water. 2. Communities are not maximising the potential to capture rainwater; over one third of rainwater harvesting tanks are without appropriate gutters and/or roof catchment. 3. There is a lack of community understanding of El Nino and drought and limited actions to mitigate the effects 4. The assessment report confirms that harvesting dependency contributes up to 40% of the vulnerability towards the drought.

KEY PRIORITIES

1. Emergency water supply and restore supply with immediate repairs to water systems. 2. Household water treatment needs to be promoted until safe water sources are useable. 3. Support communities to transform information and awareness into community action to mitigate the effects of El nino. 4. Accelerate all repairs on water supply systems by communities, government and partners 5. Construct alternative water sources for rainwater harvesting dependent communities as they are the most vulnerable during droughts.

1. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

With the current El Niño weather pattern, there is a lower than usual rainfall further exacerbating food and water shortages. 68% of rainwater harvesting structures were destroyed by Cyclone Pam. As a result many communities are experiencing water stress. El Niño’s impact will likely worsen this in the coming months. Because Cyclone Pam caused severe damage to water systems, a water crisis is potentially looming, especially with many villages and rural areas are dependent on rainwater harvesting. This has the potential to directly and severely impact Vanuatu wellbeing. Rainfall data provided by the Climate Division of VMGD shows that the accumulated rainfall for the past three months was below normal for all stations except for Whitegrass, which recorded normal rainfall. Their prediction for November 2015 – January 2016 also favours below than normal rainfall for all stations. The slow onset of the El Niño event requires close monitoring and strong coordination from the NDMO. This rapid technical assessment intends to highlight some of the hotspot areas and provide a snapshot of the current status of the impact of El Nino on water, sanitation and hygiene.

B. OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the assessment were the following:

1. To gather critical information, which would provide a comprehensive picture of humanitarian situation in the affected areas, highlighting humanitarian needs and gaps in life-saving assistance, as well as greater understanding of overall impact of El Nino, which will feed into immediate relief plans and reconstruction planning.

2. METHODOLOGY

A. PLANNING

As a preparedness measure, the Government of Vanuatu had developed standardized cluster and sector-specific assessment forms, which had successfully been used to evaluate humanitarian and early recovery needs in the country following Tropical Cyclone Lusi in 2014. A revised WASH Rapid Technical Assessment Questionaire was developed by DGMWR with support from WASH sector partners for a specific El Nino assessment. The planning for the assessment was led by the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) with the support of the Ministry of Agriculture.

The NDMO and Ministry of Agriculture liaised with the Provincial Authorities to inform the Area Council Secretaries during the planning process. The latter then worked with the Chairmen of

Community Disaster Committees (CDCs) to select local teams closely cooperated with the enumerators before and during the assessment.

Several villages were visited within each Area Council. Community Group Discussions attempted to group a range of members from each community including but not limited to:

• Village Chief • A member of each Community Water Supply Committee • A group of up to 20 persons total, ideally representing women, youth, people with a disability, children, elderly and female headed households and other vulnerabilities, • Nurses and Teachers

Commercial airlines and local transport were used.

Sites were selected together with Agriculture with dependence on rainwater harvesting as a key criteria. Selection was aklso determined by logistical means- close to access points, airports, landing sides and road access. Difficulty with logistics resulted that not all islands/area councils were visited. This assessment is therefore a selective, non-random sample.

Tanna has not been included into this assessment report as a separate assessment is intended for Tanna, yet to be completed. As such, results for Tanna are excluded from the results for Tafea. All results stating “Tafea” therefore only cover the Tafea outer islands and exclude the majority of the population who are living on Tanna.

B. AREA OF COVERAGE

Province Island Area Council

MALAMPA Ambrym North Ambrym (Ambrym)

MALAMPA Ambrym South East Ambrym (Ambrym)

MALAMPA Ambrym West Ambrym (Ambrym)

MALAMPA Malekula Central Malekula (Malekula)

MALAMPA Malekula North East Malekula (Malekula)

MALAMPA Malekula North West Malekula (Malekula)

MALAMPA Paama Paama (Paama)

PENAMA Ambae East Ambae (Ambae)

PENAMA Ambae North Ambae (Ambae)

PENAMA Ambae West Ambae (Ambae)

PENAMA Maewo North Maewo (Maewo)

PENAMA Maewo South Maewo (Maewo) PENAMA Pentecost Central Pentecost 1 (Pentecost)

Province Island Area Council

PENAMA Pentecost Central Pentecost 2 (Pentecost)

PENAMA Pentecost North Pentecost (Pentecost)

SANMA Malo East Malo (Malo)

SANMA Malo West Malo (Malo)

SANMA Santo Canal - Fanafo (Venue)

SHEFA Buninga Tongariki (Buninga) SHEFA Efate Erakor (Efate)

SHEFA Efate Erakor 1 (Efate)

SHEFA Efate Eratap (Efate)

SHEFA Efate Eton (Efate)

SHEFA Efate North Efate (Efate)

SHEFA Emae Makimae (Emae)

SHEFA Emau Emau (Emau)

SHEFA Epi Vermali (Epi)

SHEFA Lelepa Malorua (Lelepa) SHEFA Makira Makimae (Makira)

SHEFA Moso Malorua 1 (Moso)

SHEFA Nguna Nguna (Nguna)

SHEFA Pele Nguna (Pele)

SHEFA Tongariki Tongariki (Tongariki)

SHEFA Tongoa North Tongoa (Tongoa)

SHEFA Tongoa Tongariki (Tongoa) TAFEA Aniwa Aniwa (Aniwa)

TAFEA Erromango North Erromango (Erromango)

TAFEA Erromango South Erromango (Erromango)

TAFEA Fortuna Futuna (Fortuna)

TORBA Hiu Northern Area Council (Hiu)

TORBA Loh Northern Area Council (Loh)

TORBA Metoma Northern Area Council (Metoma) TORBA Mota Central Area Council (Mota)

Province Island Area Council

TORBA Tegua Northern Area Council (Tegua)

TORBA Toga Northern Area Council (Toga)

TORBA Vanua Lava Central Area Council (Vanua Lava)

TORBA

SANMA

Link to interactive MAP

PENAMA

MALAMPA

SHEFA

TAFEA

C. SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT

A total of 32 enumerators (6 women and 26 men) were deployed to 30 islands across all provinces.. Enumerators consisted of specialists from the Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources and volunteers from USP, NGOs and Vanuatu Red Cross. 3. FINDINGS

A. WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE

El Nino weather patterns have caused a reduction in rainfall and water shortages are a current reality and future possibility. Community requests for the supply of emergency drinking water have become more frequent and health impacts, such as diarrhoeal and infectious diseases are likely due to the scarcity of potable water. The abnormally low levels of rainfall will force communities to access unsafe water sources or migrate to search for potable water. Recovery from TC Pam is still on-going and the implications of multiple events on communities is acknowledged but not fully recognised.

A WASH Drought Index has been developed with 5 key indicators for water water (quantity, quality and access) and two proxy indicators being health and social. Each indicator ranges from normal (1), alert (2) and emergency (3) and is then aggregated with equal weighting to a drought index ranging from 1 to 3.

Normal Alert Emergency Quantity Estimated time till safe >21 days/will not run drinking water is finished out less than 14 days <7days Dependency on Rainwater Harvesting Between 0 to 25% Between 25 to 50% > 50% Average Drinking Water Quality >3L/person/day between 1L and 3L < 1L/person/day Quality Proportion of HH where only safe water is used for drinking and cooking 100% less than 75% less than 50% Access Average time required (minutes) for one water collection journey, including travel in each direction and queuing Less than 30mins Less than 60 mins More than 60 mins Health Presence of faecal-oral Normal number of Small increase in Significant increase diseases cases cases in cases Social Is there conflict about water? No Yes, small tensions Yes, serious conflict

The drought index is shown for each province below. The drought index is also disaggregated to island and area council in the section Summary – Drought Index.

RWH Index

Drought Drought Monitor Monitor % Depende ncy RWH (Census) Quantity Average drinking quantity Quality Access Health Social Torba 1.93 57 2.57 1.66 2.35 3.00 1.26 1.39 1.29 Sanma 1.95 39 1.30 2.29 1.79 3.00 1.57 1.42 2.32 Pena ma 1.84 60 1.00 2.13 2.38 3.00 1.28 1.69 1.38 Mala mpa 1.68 42 1.67 1.50 1.76 3.00 1.39 1.17 1.30 Shefa 1.73 23 2.07 1.97 1.71 2.00 1.64 1.31 1.39 Tafea 1.60 23 0.86 2.00 1.58 2.00 1.13 1.77 1.88 Nation al 1.81 37 1.58 1.89 1.90 3.00 1.42 1.41 1.47

WATER

KEY FINDINGS

1. Water shortages are expected across 40% of communities in Sanma, Penama, Shefa and Tafea provinces within 14 days of the survey. Penama and Torba have the least amount of safe drinking water. 2. Communities are not maximising their water catchment; over one third of rainwater harvesting tanks are without appropriate gutters and/or roof catchment. 3. There is a lack of community understanding of El Nino and drought and limited actions to mitigate the effects 4. 18% of HH take more than 30mins to collect a HH daily drinking water needs a sharp increase compared to 5.1% (DHS, 2013) and 60% of the assessed households have adequate household storage facilities. 5. Rainwater harvesting is the most vulnerable water source, with the largest reduction in water level, compared to surface, spring and ground water.

KEY PRIORITIES 1. Emergency water supply to affected areas though water distributions is crucial within the next 14 days. 2. Accelerate the repairs of systems across the country, especially on rainwater harvesting dependant islands to maximize water security. 3. Facilitate a community drive to mitigate water scarcity by household and community repairs on water systems and adopt water saving behaviours by information sharing and community mobilization. 4. Increase household collection and storage capacity of drinking water complemented with household water treatment options and soap. 5. Create alternative water sources for communities that are rainwater harvesting dependant.

OVERVIEW

Water availability per person. More than 60% of the communities report less than 3 litres of drinking available per day.

Average quantity of drinking water available (L/person/day)

<1L Between 1L and 3L > 3L

26% 36%

38%

The variation between provinces is significant. The provinces of Penama and Torba have much less access to water than the provinces of Sanma, Malampa, Shefa and Tafea.

Average quantity of drinking water available (L/person/day) per province

TAFEA 2 11 13 SHEFA 13 33 37 MALAMPA 11 19 24 PENAMA 27 8 10 SANMA 2 11 6 TORBA 13 16 2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

<1L Between 1L and 3L > 3L

1. Water availability per community water sources. Water sources were categorised as Normal, abnormal, very abnormal, no flow/water level. Noting that many water sources normally decrease in water flow/level during dryer times. The enumerators were to determine if the current levels were abnormal for this time of year.

As expected, lower than normal rainfall will have an immediate impact on the rainwater harvesting sources, followed by ground water extracted manually. Surface water, spring and groundwater sources (mechanically abstracted) will maintain normal flows/levels for a much longer period. This result confirms that dependency on rainwater harvesting is a key proxy indicator for a drought index.

Rainwater harvesting (RWH). Rainwater tanks are at very abnormal water levels. Low rainfall means that rainwater tanks at a very abnormally low water level.

Surface water: Abnormal water level/flow rate. In this case, surface water refers to rivers, streams, pools and lakes. These are usually much larger volumes of water and are often fed by smaller springs.

Spring: Abnormal water levels/flow rate. Springwater flows are reliant on the catchment area, storage volume and composition of the ground. The larger the catchment area, the more resilient.

Groundwater with mechanical extraction1: Abnormal water levels. Mechanical extraction refers to the use of a hand pump or motorised pump.

Groundwater without mechanical extraction1: Very abnormal water levels. Groundwater without mechanical extraction refers to a hand dug well both protected and unprotected. Hand dug wells are typically very shallow and may be influenced earlier by smaller drops in groundwater levels.

1 The variation between water levels of groundwater with and without mechanical extraction is likely to be caused by the greater drilling depth of a groundwater source with a mechanical pumping which is most likely drilled with a mechanical drill, compared to manual extraction, which tends to be traditionally made, usually close to the coast line and a shallow depth. The deeper the well, the more likely it will access larger quantities of water.

The charts below highlight the number of useable and damaged tanks and tanks with or without appropriate roof and gutters. The data shows that over 80% of the tanks are useable but 40% are without appropriate roof and 37% are without appropriate gutters2. This is a major impact on the ability for communities and households to capture and store rainwater. The variation between provinces is very large in Tanna which may be related to TC Pam.

0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%

Torba 83 80 Torba 75 88

Sanma 139 486 Sanma 206 419

Penama 152 209 Penama 165 196

Malampa 181 147 Malampa 130 198

Shefa 268 933 Shefa 377 824

Tafea 163 23 Tafea 167 19

National 986 1878 National 1120 1744 Number of tanks WITHOUT appropriate Number of tanks WITHOUT appropriate gutters roof catchment Number of tanks WITH appropriate Number of tanks WITH appropriate roof gutters catchment

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Torba 10 153

Sanma 99 526

Penama 127 234

Malampa 50 278

Shefa 205 996

Tafea 52 134

National 543 2321

Number of DAMAGED tanks Number of USEABLE tanks

2 This is an anomaly as the expectation is that there are roofs without gutters rather than gutters without roofs. Explanations may be a) the longer lifespan of PVC gutters than corrugated iron roofs, b) years of cyclone damage may have impacted roofs more than gutters, c) a number of tanks are open top with the rainwater entering directly from the roof to the tank. D.) confusion by the enumerators.

2. Water availability per community. Communities were asked to estimate the number of days until safe drinking water will be finished. Responses are categorised as (1) less than 7 days, (2) between 7 and 14 days, (3) more than 21 days and (4) will not run out.

Estimated time until drinking water is finished 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NATIONAL 52 48 130 28

TORBA 3 2 24 2

SANMA 6 8 5 0

PENAMA 13 13 17 2

MALAMPA 1 6 35 12

SHEFA 22 13 40 8

TAFEA 7 6 9 4

Less than 7 days Between 7 and 14 days More than 21 days Will not run out of water

20% of communities responded that all safe drinking water will be finished in less than 7 days. There is a large variance across provinces with Sanma, Penama, Shefa and Tafea with more than 40% of communities stating that all safe drinking water will be finished in less than 14 days.

As an additional verification question communities were requested to estimate the likelihood of a critical fall in quantity of water available per day within the next month.

The likelihood of a critical shortfall in water quantity in the next month 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

National 190 9 32 27 TORBA 30 0 1 SANMA 19 0 PENAMA 33 1 2 9 MALAMPA 42 7 1 4 SHEFA 46 21 3 13 TAFEA 20 3 3 0

Very likely Somewhat likely Unlikely Do not know

3. Water quality

Water quality testing. The overall majority of water resources are biologically contaminated as per water quality testing results from the Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources (DGMWR). Extensive water quality testing has not been undertaken in response to El Nino but in the absence of this it can be safely assumed that the reduction in safer water supply from rainwater harvesting to other

less protected sources such as open dug wells and surface water. It is therefore advised to treat water before consumption, by boiling, water purification tablets of chlorination.

Household water treatment and safe storage. The assessment results do not provide a clear picture of the level of household water treatment. However, between type of water treatment, the most common methods have been identified. The most common option is boiling of water followed by using disinfection tablets and chlorination. As this is self-reported data by communities, and the assessment team indicated a low proportion of household water treatment being observed. As per Demographic Household Survey (DHS) 2013, only 21% of the rural households boil their water, and also here, boiling is the most preferred option.

Most common household water treatment 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Torba

Sanma

Penama

Malampa

Shefa

Tafea

Boiling Chlorine Purification tablets Alternative method

Less than 50% of HH across the country are using safe water for all their drinking and cooking. The higher % in Shefa and Tafea may be due to the recent and onging TC Pam response activities.

% HH only using safe water for drinking and cooking 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

National Average TORBA SANMA PENAMA MALAMPA SHEFA TAFEA

Water storage. Water storage options, an important tool to mitigate the shortage of water and ensure the water quality during storage. Over 35% of the households do not have means of water storage with at least a bucket with lid or jerry can.

Households water storage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% TORBA SANMA PENAMA MALAMPA SHEFA TAFEA Grand Total

HH with atleast one jerry can or bucket with lid HH without jerry can or bucket with lid

4. Water access

Water access is measured by the average time taken to fetch total drinking water for the household. 18% of all responses indicated that it takes more than 30mins to collect total drinking water as compared to the 5.1% (for rural area) in the DHS. The increase in time to fetch water puts additional strain on the household, and further reduces the water quantity available for household as only the bare minimum will be collected for. Communities were asked to indicate who the main collector of water is, to which the response is in majority (67%) shared by all household members. When the responses are disaggregated it is clear that there is over 60% strain on women and girls.

Number of minutes to fetch total drinking water needs (return trip) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NATIONAL TORBA SANMA PENAMA MALAMPA SHEFA TAFEA

> 60 mins 30 - 60 mins 15 - 30 mins 0 - 15 mins

Who is the main fetcher of water?

0% 1%

22% Everyone equal Men and Women equal Men 2% Women 8% 67% Boys Boys and Girls equal

5. Information and awareness to save water

In focus groups, communities were asked if there was information and awareness to save water. Approximately 30% of the respondents indicated that they were not aware, while 60% of the respondents indicated to be aware, but no action is being taken. The most alarming is that small numbers of communities responded “Yes, and community are currently rationing water”. There is significant variation across provinces with Penama and Torba showing a lack of awareness to save water.

These results are confirmed by an assessment done by Care International in Vanuatu conducted post distribution monitoring in Tafea (Tanna and outer islands) in October 2015. The majority of respondents in Tanna and Tafea Outer Islands are not aware what El Nino is (Male:- Tanna 77% & Outer Islands 11%; Female:- Tanna: 85% & Outer Islands 34%).

The data suggest that a massive mobilization campaign to create awareness and supporting taking actions to save water would be a top priority.

Is there any information and awareness to save water? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Torba

Sanma

Penama

Malampa

Shefa

Tafea

National

No Yes Yes, and community is currently rationing water

There are a number of communication strategies possible to raise awareness, although not all are effective. Communication via mobile phone is the most commonly used for blanket coverage. Communities were asked to estimate the number of households with access to at least one mobile phone and the % of HH with women owning a mobile phone. Women are commonly known as the managers of household water and hygiene and therefore they would ideally directly receive messages.

The % HH with women owning a mobile phone is 40%.

Mobile phone use

National TORBA TAFEA SHEFA SANMA PENAMA MALAMPA 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 % HH with atleast 1 mobile phone % HH with women owning a mobile phone

SANITATION

KEY FINDINGS

Note: There is no direct relationship with El Nino and the sanitation situation. As a result, sanitation is not included in the WASH drought index.

1. There is a small proportion of rural sanitation that is dependent of water for flushing. 2. 18% of communities surveyed, the assessors observed human faeces on the ground.

KEY PRIORITIES 1. Hygiene and sanitation promotion activities to increase awareness for improved sanitation behaviours and improved sanitation facilities. 2. Where required, provide temporary dry-pit options for sanitation facilities at health centres and schools.

OVERVIEW

1. Impact to sanitation. The impact of El Nino to sanitation is limited at a household level with 7.1% of rural sanitation relying on water for flushing (DHS 2013). As per census data, there was not a universal toilet coverage across the country, and there has been a practise of sharing toilets between families. Toilets at schools and health care facilities are often more improved (water-sealed) than in communities.

2. Defecation practises. Field enumerators made observation of the presence of human faeces in 18% of communities. The high rate in Tafea may be linked to the impact of TC Pam and or movement of people causing a higher ratio of toilets to persons.

Observation of open defecation

Grand Total 27 21 111 99 TAFEA 14 0 12 0 SHEFA 6 5 49 23 MALAMPA 0 16 38 PENAMA 1 3 14 27 SANMA 6 12 0 1 TORBA 0 1 20 10

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes, human faeces Yes, both Yes, animal faeces No

The assessments show that 18% of communities surveyed have some level of open defecation, compared to 2.5% open defecation for rural households per 2013 Demographic Household Survey (DHS). The highest level of Open Defecation in the assessment is Tafea province, with more than 50% of the communities with signs of human faeces, this could be related to the cyclone Pam which destroyed the superstructures of latrines. The presence of human faeces poses a health risk.

Toilet user ratio. Toilet user ratio is a rough indicator for the sanitation situation. The average for each province is shown in the blue line, the black lines show the the standard deviation. There is a wide variation observed between provinces. Looking at the standard deviation- or the range- Shefa and

Torba have the highest numbers in terms of people sharing one latrine, in Shefa up to 25 people per latrine.

Average of ratio people to latrines

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 MALAMPA PENAMA SANMA SHEFA TAFEA TORBA National

HYGIENE & HEALTH

KEY FINDINGS

1. Over 65% of households have access to soap and self-report around 60% use soap. 2. Communities report a significant increase of diarrhoea in over 30% of communities in Tafea and Penama.

KEY PRIORITIES 1. Hygiene messages roll out on the importance of hand washing at critical times using mass media and interpersonal communication 2. Ensure availability of soap at all households by household distributions. 3. Triangulate surveillance data from the Ministry of Health with WASH data to identify the communities which are at the highest risk

OVERVIEW

Hand washing with soap is one of the most critical behaviours to prevent diarrhoea outbreaks. The data suggests that over 65% of the households have access to soap. When asked whether household use soap for, less than 60% confirmed to use soap. This is however a question which is prone to trigger over reporting, as there is a social norm to wash hands. The international agreed proxy indicator for hand washing is: a designated place for hand washing within the compound. As per DHS 2013, 32% of the rural households had access to soap and water for hand washing at the time of visiting. This means that in practise the hand washing behaviour can be expected around 32%. However when faces with water shortages, this number can be expected to drop.

The variation between provinces between access and usage is rather large. Torba has the lowest usage.

Household access to soap Household usage of soap 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%

TORBA TORBA

SANMA SANMA

PENAMA PENAMA

MALAMPA MALAMPA

SHEFA SHEFA

TAFEA TAFEA

National National

HH with soap HH without soap HH using soap HH not using soap

Fecal-oral disease: As per self-reported data from the communities, there is a significant increase in the occurrence of diarrhoea in 18% of communities. There is a higher variance between provinces with Tafea and Penama showing over 30% of communities with a significant increase of the occurrence of diarrhoea. Diarrhoea is linked with water quality, hygiene behaviours and food preparation; hence the diarrhoea cases could be used as a proxy indicator for the water availability.

Evidence of fecal-oral disease

NATIONAL 46 14 200 TAFEA 9 2 15 SHEFA 9 8 66 MALAMPA 3 3 48 PENAMA 15 1 29 SANMA 4 0 15 TORBA 6 0 25

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Significant increase in cases Small increase in cases Normal number of cases

Yaws: As per self-reported data from the communities, there is a significant increase in the occurrence h of yaws in 5% of the communities visited. The greatest provincial variance is in Tafea with 20% of communities reporting a significant increase of yaws. Yaws is linked to water quantity, as insufficient washing behaviours increase the risk of Yaws. Due to water shortages, there is a likely decreasing in washing and thus and increased risk of Yaws.

Evidence of Yaws

NATIONAL 11 11 216 TAFEA 4 4 12 SHEFA 11 74 MALAMPA 3 3 48 PENAMA 3 3 30 SANMA 0 19 TORBA 0 31

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Significant increase in cases Small increase in cases Normal number of cases

Note: where possible, the community reports were verified with a Health Care Facility, but in this case the data represented should be taken as community self reported. Enumerators were not extensively trained to recognise diarrhoeal or yaws outbreaks etc. Triangulation with the Ministry of Health surveillance data is recommended.

SOCIAL

KEY FINDINGS

1. Conflict over water is taking place across the country, over 35% of the communities have some sort of tensions and 10% of communities are experiencing serious conflict due to water. Tafea and Sanma have the most conflict over the water.

KEY PRIORITIES 1. Understand if this conflict is a long standing issue, or emerging due to acute water shortage by ongoing monitoring.

Conflict about water: Shortage in water may cause stress within communities and households. 10% of communities surveyed indicated there is a serious conflict over water. This conflict may arise from shortage of water availability from community owned sources and reliance on private sources. It is not known whether the reported conflict is due to El Nino or has been long standing issues.

Is there conflict about water? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

TORBA 1 7 23 SANMA 11 3 5 PENAMA 1 15 29 MALAMPA 2 12 40 SHEFA 8 16 59 TAFEA 7 9 10 NATIONAL 30 62 168

Yes, serious conflict Yes, small tension No

SUMMARY – DROUGHT INDEX

KEY FINDINGS

1. Torba, Sanma and Penama have the highest drought index scores.

In order to identify the most effected areas and prioritize locations for a support, a drought index is being proposed. The index combines critical variables of water quality, quality, access, health and social conflict which are key during the El Nino drought. Indicators as hygiene and sanitation have been left out as the link with El Nino is weak and thus should not be used in the prioritization process, but are to be used while planning interventions.

The index ranges from a score of normal (1), alert (2) and emergency (3). The drought index aggregates indicators from water and hygiene. A range for each indicator is given with an estimate of what is normal, alert and emergency. In most cases a baseline is not available, therefore defining “normal” is subjective. This drought index provides detail to the island/area council level.

Prior to the assessment, in the absence of a drought index, the sector had used the level of rainwater Harvesting (RWH) dependency of communities as a proxi indicator of vulnerability and thus prioritization. The 2009 census scores were used on “the main source of drinking of water”, which was used to determine the levels of rainwater harvesting dependency. The higher the share of households on RWH, the higher the dependency on RWH.

The assessment attempts to validate this method by determining the correlation between the drought index with the level of RHW. The R score is .39, meaning that the there is a correlation of almost 40% with the proportion of household identifying rainwater harvesting as their drinking source. This means that the scores on the index can be for 40% explained by RWH dependency, and 60% are other variables. These other variables are; impact of cyclone pam on existing systems, rainfall on the location, existing alternative sources (not identified a primary drinking source), population density, isolation etc. It should also be noted, that this assessment only covered the more vulnerable areas, and did purposely not include areas with no water shortages, such as South Pentecost which has an abundance of streams and springs and very limited RWH (10%). It is well possible that the correlation would be stronger by including these none vulnerable areas, as both RWH dependency and drought index are expected to be low. This assessment confirms that RWH dependency can be used as a proxy indicator, however other factors do account up to 60% of the drought effects.

Correlation between 2009 Census data for RWH and Drought Index

100 90 R² = 0.3862 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 % Dependency on rainwater % Dependency rainwater on harvesting Proposed Drought Index

Table 1Proposed El Nino Drought Index - Province Level

Drought Monitor Index RWH Dependency RWH (Census) Quantity Average drinking quantity Quality Access Health Social Torba 1.93 57 2.57 1.66 2.35 3.00 1.26 1.39 1.29 Sanma 1.95 39 1.30 2.29 1.79 3.00 1.57 1.42 2.32 Penama 1.84 60 1.00 2.13 2.38 3.00 1.28 1.69 1.38 Malampa 1.68 42 1.67 1.50 1.76 3.00 1.39 1.17 1.30 Shefa 1.73 23 2.07 1.97 1.71 2.00 1.64 1.31 1.39 Tafea 1.60 23 0.86 2.00 1.58 2.00 1.13 1.77 1.88 National 1.81 37 1.58 1.89 1.90 3.00 1.42 1.41 1.47

Table 2 Proposed El Nino Drought Index - Island Level

Drought Days till Average Monitor RWH RWH safe water drinking Province Island Index Dependency (Census) ends quantity Quality Access Health Social Torba Hiu 2.64 95 3.00 3.00 2.67 3.00 1.83 3.00 2.00 Torba Loh 1.97 100 3.00 1.40 2.60 3.00 1.00 1.40 1.40 Torba Metoma 2.07 100 3.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Torba Mota 1.79 82 3.00 1.63 2.50 2.00 1.38 1.00 1.00 Torba Tegua 2.07 86 3.00 1.50 2.50 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 Torba Toga 1.89 100 3.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 1.75 1.00 1.00 Torba Vanua Lava 1.30 21 0.00 1.52 2.15 2.00 1.19 1.00 1.23 Sanma Santo 2.00 35 1.00 2.34 2.00 3.00 1.16 2.00 2.50 Sanma Malo 1.78 64 1.50 2.25 1.64 2.00 1.86 1.00 2.18 Penama Maewo 1.67 6 0.00 1.50 1.83 3.00 1.00 2.67 1.67 Penama Ambae 1.81 89 2.00 1.83 2.05 2.00 1.42 1.95 1.45 Penama Pentecost 1.87 54 1.00 2.74 3.00 3.00 1.21 1.00 1.18 Malampa Malekula 1.54 Unknown Unknown 1.33 1.70 3.00 1.70 1.40 1.30 Malampa Ambrym 1.57 78 1.67 1.52 1.36 3.00 1.27 1.04 1.14 Malampa Paama 1.76 77 3.00 1.58 2.50 1.00 1.41 1.25 1.56 Shefa Tongoa 2.24 92 2.50 3.00 2.55 3.00 2.09 1.36 1.18 Shefa Tongariki 2.02 100 3.00 3.00 1.78 2.00 1.67 1.00 1.67 Shefa Epi 1.32 20 0.00 2.25 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shefa Emae 1.81 90 3.00 1.61 1.33 3.00 1.31 1.22 1.22 Shefa Emau 1.62 96 3.00 1.69 1.00 1.00 2.63 1.00 1.00 Shefa Buninga 1.89 87 3.00 1.88 2.00 2.00 2.38 1.00 1.00 Shefa Lelepa 1.07 35 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shefa Makira 1.86 100 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shefa Moso 1.86 94 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shefa Nguna 1.57 95 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shefa Pele 1.41 92 3.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.21 1.00 1.00 Shefa Efate 1.78 16 0.40 2.77 2.08 2.00 1.59 1.77 1.85 Tafea Erromango 1.69 25 0.00 2.66 1.09 2.00 1.18 2.82 2.09 Tafea Aniwa 1.79 99 3.00 1.65 1.83 2.00 1.10 1.00 1.92 Tafea Fortuna 1.33 1 0.00 1.00 2.33 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table 3Proposed El Nino Drought Index - Province/Island/Area Council

Drought Average Monitor RWH RWH drinking Province/Island/Area Council Index Dependency (Census) Quantity quantity Quality Access Health Social MALAMPA 1.68 42 1.7 1.5 1.8 3.0 1.4 1.2 1.3 Ambrym 1.57 78 1.7 1.5 1.4 3.0 1.3 1.0 1.1 North Ambrym (Ambrym) 1.44 49 1.0 1.6 1.0 3.0 1.4 1.1 1.0 South East Ambrym (Ambrym) 1.72 54 2.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 West Ambrym (Ambrym) 1.55 56 2.0 1.4 1.1 3.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 Malekula 1.54 #N/A 0.3 1.3 1.7 3.0 1.7 1.4 1.3 Central Malekula (Malekula) 1.21 25 0.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 North East Malekula (Malekula) 1.80 34 1.0 1.3 2.2 3.0 1.9 1.8 1.4 North West Malekula (Malekula) 1.35 3 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.0 1.6 1.0 1.3 Paama 1.76 77 3.0 1.6 2.5 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.6 Paama (Paama) 1.61 58 2.0 1.6 2.5 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.6 PENAMA 1.84 60 1.0 2.1 2.4 3.0 1.3 1.7 1.4 Ambae 1.81 89 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 1.5 East Ambae (Ambae) 1.61 58 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.4 North Ambae (Ambae) 1.83 55 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 1.7 West Ambae (Ambae) 2.07 68 2.0 2.1 2.8 3.0 1.4 1.8 1.4 Maewo 1.67 6 0.0 1.5 1.8 3.0 1.0 2.7 1.7 North Maewo (Maewo) 1.57 4 0.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.5 South Maewo (Maewo) 1.57 8 0.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Pentecost 1.87 54 1.0 2.7 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 Central Pentecost 1 (Pentecost) 1.89 48 1.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 Central Pentecost 2 (Pentecost) 1.93 41 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 North Pentecost (Pentecost) 1.84 47 1.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 SANMA 1.95 39 1.3 2.3 1.8 3.0 1.6 1.4 2.3 Malo 1.78 64 1.5 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.0 2.2 East Malo (Malo) 2.06 52 2.0 2.4 1.8 3.0 1.5 1.0 2.8 West Malo (Malo) 1.66 41 1.0 2.1 1.6 2.0 2.1 1.0 1.9 Santo 2.00 35 1.0 2.3 2.0 3.0 1.2 2.0 2.5 Canal - Fanafo (Venue) 2.00 40 1.0 2.3 2.0 3.0 1.2 2.0 2.5 SHEFA 1.73 23 2.1 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.4

Drought Average Monitor RWH RWH drinking Province/Island/Area Council Index Dependency (Census) Quantity quantity Quality Access Health Social Buninga 1.89 87 3.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.4 1.0 1.0 Tongariki (Buninga) 2.05 81 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 1.0 1.0 Efate 1.78 16 0.4 2.8 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.8 Erakor (Efate) 1.43 25 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Erakor 1 (Efate) 2.04 25 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.0 1.0 Eratap (Efate) 1.96 35 1.0 2.8 2.3 2.0 2.3 1.5 1.8 Eton (Efate) 1.71 18 0.0 3.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 North Efate (Efate) 1.83 42 1.0 2.7 2.1 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.8 Emae 1.81 90 3.0 1.6 1.3 3.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 Makimae (Emae) 2.01 90 3.0 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 Emau 1.62 96 3.0 1.7 1.0 1.0 2.6 1.0 1.0 Emau (Emau) 1.80 96 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.6 1.0 1.0 Epi 1.32 20 0.0 2.3 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Vermali (Epi) 1.32 25 0.0 2.3 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lelepa 1.07 35 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Malorua (Lelepa) 1.07 35 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Makira 1.86 100 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Makimae (Makira) 1.86 100 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Moso 1.86 94 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Malorua 1 (Moso) 1.86 94 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Nguna 1.57 95 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Nguna (Nguna) 1.57 95 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pele 1.41 92 3.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 Nguna (Pele) 1.41 92 3.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 Tongariki 2.02 100 3.0 3.0 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.0 1.7 Tongariki (Tongariki) 2.02 100 3.0 3.0 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.0 1.7 Tongoa 2.24 92 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.1 1.4 1.2 North Tongoa (Tongoa) 2.14 75 2.0 3.0 2.6 3.0 2.1 1.1 1.1 Tongariki (Tongoa) 2.36 81 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.8 1.3 TAFEA 1.60 23 0.9 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.1 1.8 1.9 Aniwa 1.79 99 3.0 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.9 Aniwa (Aniwa) 1.79 99 3.0 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.9

Drought Average Monitor RWH RWH drinking Province/Island/Area Council Index Dependency (Census) Quantity quantity Quality Access Health Social Erromango 1.69 25 0.0 2.7 1.1 2.0 1.2 2.8 2.1 North Erromango (Erromango) 1.48 23 0.0 2.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 2.7 1.7 South Erromango (Erromango) 1.86 20 0.0 2.6 1.1 3.0 1.2 2.9 2.3 Fortuna 1.33 1 0.0 1.0 2.3 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Futuna (Fortuna) 1.33 1 0.0 1.0 2.3 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 TORBA 1.93 57 2.6 1.7 2.4 3.0 1.3 1.4 1.3 Hiu 2.64 95 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 1.8 3.0 2.0 Northern Area Council (Hiu) 2.64 95 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 1.8 3.0 2.0 Loh 1.97 100 3.0 1.4 2.6 3.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 Northern Area Council (Loh) 1.97 100 3.0 1.4 2.6 3.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 Metoma 2.07 100 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 Northern Area Council (Metoma) 2.07 100 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 Mota 1.79 82 3.0 1.6 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 Central Area Council (Mota) 1.79 82 3.0 1.6 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 Tegua 2.07 86 3.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 Northern Area Council (Tegua) 2.07 86 3.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 Toga 1.89 100 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 Northern Area Council (Toga) 1.89 100 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 Vanua Lava 1.30 21 0.0 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 Central Area Council (Vanua Lava) 1.30 21 0.0 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 National 1.81 37 1.6 1.9 1.9 3.0 1.4 1.4 1.5

PROPOSED WASH DROUGHT INDEX INDICATORS

Normal Alert Emergency Quantity Estimated time till safe drinking water is finished >21 days/will not run out less than 14 days <7days Dependency on Rainwater Harvesting Between 0 to 25% Between 25 to 50% > 50% Average Drinking Water Quality >3L/person/day between 1L and 3L < 1L/person/day Quality Proportion of HH where only safe water is used for drinking and cooking 100% less than 75% less than 50% Access Average time required (minutes) for one water collection journey, including travel in each direction and queuing Less than 30mins Less than 60 mins More than 60 mins Health Presence of faecal-oral diseases Normal number of cases Small increase in cases Significant increase in cases Social Is there conflict about water? No Yes, small tensions Yes, serious conflict