Profiles by State Blue Nile ...... 51 Central Equatoria...... 57 Eastern Equatoria...... 65 Gadaref...... 71 Jonglei ...... 75 Kassala...... 81 Lakes ...... 87 Northern Bahr El Ghazal...... 89 Red Sea...... 93 Sennar...... 97 Southern Kordofan ...... 99 Unity ...... 105 Upper Nile ...... 109 Warrab ...... 113 Western Bahr El Ghazal ...... 117 Western Equatoria ...... 121

Annexes Annex I - Key Participants ...... 127 Annex II - Data Quality Management...... 129 Annex III - Retrofitting the Database ...... 131 Annex IV- Project Timeline ...... 133 Annex V - Administrative Structures ...... 137 Annex VI - Team Leader Report ...... 141 Annex VII - Survey Logistics ...... 143 Annex VIII - Methodology...... 145 Annex IX - Explanation of Scoring and Classification of Communities...... 147 Annex X - Abbreviations ...... 149 Annex XI – Estimation of Prevalence of Mine-Affected Communities ...... 151 Annex XII - Survey Staffing...... 153

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 1

Figures, Maps, and Tables

Figures 1 Blue Nile: Estimated Size of SHAs, by Community Impact Level ...... 53 2 Blue SHAs Blocking Resources, With and Without Sufficient Alternatives ...... 54 3 Blue Survey Coverage...... 55 4 Central Equatoria: Estimated Size of SHAs, by Community Impact Level ...... 59 5 Blue SHAs Blocking Resources, With and Without Sufficient Alternatives ...... 59 6 Blue Survey Coverage...... 61 7 Eastern Equatoria: Estimated Size of SHAs, by Community Impact Level ...... 67 8 Blue SHAs Blocking Resources, With and Without Sufficient Alternatives ...... 68 9 Blue Survey Coverage...... 69 10 Gadaref: Survey Coverage ...... 73 11 Jonglei: Estimated Size of SHAs, by Community Impact Level ...... 77 12 Blue Reported SHAs Blocking Resources and Mitigating Alternatives ...... 77 13 Blue Survey Coverage ...... 79 14 Kassala: Estimated Size of SHAs, by Community Impact Level ...... 83 15 Blue SHAs Blocking Resources, With and Without Sufficient Alternatives ...... 84 16 Blue Survey Coverage ...... 85 17 Lakes: Survey Coverage ...... 88 18 Northern Bahr El Ghazal: Survey Coverage ...... 91 19 Red Sea: Survey Coverage ...... 95 20 Southern Kordofan: Estimated Size of SSHs, by Community Impact Level ...... 101 21 Blue SHAs Blocking Resources, With and Without Sufficient Alternatives ...... 102 22 Blue Survey Coverage ...... 103 23 Unity: Survey Coverage ...... 107 24 Upper Nile: Survey Coverage ...... 111 25 Warrab: Survey Coverage ...... 115 26 Western Bahr El Ghazal: Estimated Size of SHAs, by Community Impact Level ...... 118 27 Blue Survey Coverage ...... 120 28 Western Equatoria: Estimated Size of SHAs, by Community Impact Level ...... 122 29 Blue SHAs Blocking Resources, With and Without Sufficient Alternatives ...... 123 30 Blue Survey Coverage ...... 124 31 Countrywide: Total Survey Coverage Results From all 16-Surveyed States ...... 152

Maps 1 Summary of the LIS Results ...... 8 2 Landmine Status on Completion of the LIS, by State ...... 10 3 Geographic Distribution of Impacted Communities ...... 27 4 Suspected Hazard Areas in Equatoria Region ...... 28 5 Suspected Hazard Areas in Juba County in Central Equatoria ...... 28 6 Suspected Hazard Areas in the Oil Concession Areas ...... 29 7 Suspected Hazard Areas in Border Areas with Eritrea and Ethiopia ...... 30 8 Suspected Hazardous Area in Abbyei Locality in Southern Kordofan ...... 31

2 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS

Maps (continued)

9 Suspected Hazard Areas and UXO Spot Clearance Locations ...... 34 10 Suspected Hazard Areas With Recent Victims ...... 37 11 Dangerous Areas Previously Recorded in the UNMAO Database ...... 44 12 Communities Reporting Mine Risk Education ...... 47 13 Impacted Communities in Blue Nile State ...... 52 14 Impacted Communities in Central Equatoria State ...... 58 15 Impacted Communities in Eastern Equatoria State ...... 66 16 Impacted Communities in Gadaref State ...... 72 17 Impacted Communities in Jonglei State ...... 76 18 Impacted Communities in Kassala State ...... 82 19 Impacted Communities in Lakes State ...... 88 20 Impacted Communities in Northern Bahr El Ghazal State ...... 90 21 Impacted Communities in Red Sea State ...... 94 22 Dinder National Park in Sennar State ...... 98 23 Impacted Communities in Southern Kordofan State ...... 100 24 Impacted Communities in Unity State ...... 106 25 Impacted Communities in Upper Nile State ...... 110 26 Impacted Communities in Warrab State ...... 114 27 Impacted Communities in Western Bahr El Ghazal State ...... 118 28 Impacted Communities in Western Equatoria State...... 122

Tables 1 Survey Timeline ...... 7 2 Summary of the Landmine Impact Survey Results in the 16 Surveyed States ...... 9 3 Funding by Contracting Phase ...... 14 4 Communities, SHAs, and Population, by Impact Category ...... 21 5 Impacted Communities and Populations, by State ...... 22 6 Communities not Accessible, not Located, or Abandoned ...... 23 7 Abandoned Communities with Landmines ...... 24 8 Recent Victims Reported in a Community, by Frequency ...... 25 9 Expected Number of Returnees in the Impacted Communities, by State ...... 25 10 Countrywide Distribution of Impacted Communities, SHAs, and Recent Victims ...... 26 11 Equatoria Region and the Remainder of the Country ...... 27 12 LIS Results in Abbyei Locality in Southern Kordofan State ...... 31 13 Recent Victims, by Injury and Gender ...... 32 14 Victim’s Activity at the Time of the Incident ...... 32 15 Recent Victims, by Age and Gender ...... 32 16 Victim’s Post-Incident Medical Treatment and Other Care ...... 32 17 Recent Victims, by Type of Injury and Gender ...... 32 18 Impacted Communities and SHAs, by State ...... 33 19 Estimated Size of SHAs, by State ...... 33 20 SHA Size, by State and Community Impact Level ...... 35 21 SHAs Per Impacted Community, by Impact Level ...... 35 22 Communities with Recent Victims ...... 36 23 SHAs with Victims, by Community Impact Level ...... 36

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 3

Tables (continued)

24 Impacted Communities and SHAs, by Ordnance Type ...... 38 25 UXO Spot Clearance Tasks, by State ...... 39 26 Update from UNMAO on SHAs as at November 2009 ...... 39 27 Communities Reporting Blocked Access to Socio-Economic Resources ...... 41 28 Blocked Access to Socio-Economic Resources, by Impact Category ...... 42 29 Blocked Access to Socio-Economic Resources, by State...... 42 30 Results of Retrofit of UNMAO Dangerous Areas ...... 43 31 Impacted Communities Reporting Prior Mine Action, by Impact Level ...... 45 32 Impacted Communities Reporting Prior MRE, by State and Impact Level ...... 46

Blue Nile 33 Communities, by Locality and Impact Level ...... 51 34 Expected Number of Returnees, by Locality ...... 52 35 SHAs per Community, by Frequency ...... 53 36 Profile of Casualties ...... 53 37 Communities Reporting Past Mine Action, by Activity Type ...... 54 38 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 54 39 List of 33 Impacted Communities in Blue Nile State ...... 56

Central Equatoria 40 Communities, by County and Impact Level ...... 57 41 Expected Number of Returnees, by County ...... 58 42 SHAs per Community, by Frequency ...... 59 43 Profile of Casualties ...... 60 44 Communities Reporting Past Mine Action, by Activity Type ...... 60 45 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 61 46 List of 77 Impacted Communities in Central Equatoria State ...... 62 List of 77 Impacted Communities in Central Equatoria State - Continued ...... 63

Eastern Equatoria 47 Communities, by County and Impact Level ...... 65 48 Expected Number of Returnees, by County ...... 67 49 SHAs per Community, by Frequency ...... 67 50 Profile of Casualties ...... 68 51 Communities Reporting Past Mine Action, by Activity Type ...... 69 52 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 69 53 List of 43 Impacted Communities in Eastern Equatoria State ...... 70

Gadaref 54 Communities, by Locality and Impact Level ...... 71 55 List of 3 Impacted Communities in Gadaref State ...... 73

Jonglei 56 Communities, by County and Impact Level ...... 75 57 Expected Number of Returnees, by County ...... 76 58 SHAs per Community, by Frequency ...... 77

4 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables (continued)

59 Profile of Casualties ...... 77 60 Communities Reporting Past Mine Action, by Activity Type ...... 78 61 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 78 62 List of 17 Impacted Communities in Jonglei State ...... 79

Kassala 63 Communities, by Locality and Impact Level ...... 81 64 Expected Number of Returnees, by Locality ...... 82 65 Profile of Casualties ...... 83 66 Communities Reporting Past Mine Action, by Activity Type ...... 84 67 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 85 68 List of 28 Impacted Communities in Kassala State ...... 86

Lakes 69 Communities, by County and Impact Level ...... 87 70 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 87 71 List of the Single Impacted Communities in Lakes State ...... 88

Northern Bahr El Ghazal 72 Communities, by County and Impact Level ...... 89 73 SHAs and Recent Victims, by County ...... 89 74 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 90 75 List of 5 Impacted Communities in Northern Bahr El Ghazal State ...... 91

Red Sea 76 Communities, by Locality and Impact Level ...... 93 77 List of the Single Impacted Communities in Red Sea State ...... 95

Southern Kordofan 78 Communities, by Locality and Impact Level ...... 99 79 Expected Number of Returnees, by Locality ...... 100 80 SHAs per Community, by Frequency ...... 101 81 Profile of Casualties ...... 101 82 Retrofit of the Dangerous Area Records in the UNMAO Database ...... 102 83 Retrofit of the Minefield Records in the UNMAO Database ...... 102 84 Communities Reporting Past Mine Action, by Activity Type ...... 103 85 List of 48 Impacted Communities in Southern Kordofan State ...... 104

Unity 86 Communities, by County and Impact Level ...... 105 87 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 105 88 List of the Single Impacted Communities in Unity State ...... 107

Upper Nile 89 Communities, by County and Impact Level ...... 109 90 List of 11 Impacted Communities in Upper Nile State ...... 111

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 5

Tables (continued)

Warrab 91 Impacted Communities and SHAs, by County ...... 113 92 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 115 93 List of 3 Impacted Communities in Warrab State ...... 116

Western Bahr El Ghazal 94 Communities, by County and Impact Level ...... 117 95 Expected Number of Returnees, by County ...... 117 96 Profile of Casualties ...... 119 97 Communities Reporting Past Mine Action, by Activity Type ...... 119 98 Retrofit of the Dangerous Area Records in the UNMAO Database ...... 119 99 List of 9 Impacted Communities in Western Bahr El Ghazal State ...... 120

Western Equatoria 100 Communities, by County and Impact Level ...... 121 101 Expected Number of Returnees, by County ...... 121 102 SHAs per Community, by Frequency ...... 122 103 Communities Reporting Past Mine Action, by Activity Type ...... 123 104 Retrofit of the Dangerous Areas in the UNMAO Database ...... 123 105 List of 16 Impacted Communities in Western Equatoria State ...... 124

6 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

The government, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), and non state armed groups used landmines in Sudan during more than 20 years of civil conflict. In June 2003 when the Survey Action Center conducted an Advance Survey Mission at the request of the United Nations Mine Action program in Sudan, landmines were perceived to be a major but largely unknown problem in Sudan. In addition to the obstacles from the lack of a peace agreement at the time there was insufficient information on the landmine problem to develop a national strategic plan to reduce the overall threat and risk.

Sudan presents many challenges to humanitarian and development planners. It is the tenth largest country in the world and is largely lacking roads and modern modes of transportation. Until recently, information flowed slowly and often inaccurately to the national authorities or the UN Mine Action Office. Further, the nature of the conflict in Sudan meant that records were rarely kept, and those that may have existed were often inaccurate or out of date. As a result, information was not available to comprehensively quantify the extent of mine contamination in Sudan at the time of the Advance Survey Mission in June 2003 and the full impact mines had on the life of the local population. Estimates of the problem at the time ranged from one-third of the country were impacted by mines to roads and garrison towns in 21 of the 25 states. The DanChurchAid (DCA) and the European Commission-funded Sudan Landmine and Information Response Initiative (SLIRI) were the major operators at the time.

With many unknowns in conducting surveys in Sudan including access and logistics the field work began as a pilot in March 2006 in Eastern Equatoria with funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and Mines Advisory Group (MAG) serving as SAC’s implementing partner. The results demonstrated that, with good planning and sufficient funding, information on the landmine problem in Sudan could be successfully collected at the community level. Subsequently, the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) through its operations in Sudan provided continual financial support through the Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) and the European Commission (EC). Quality assurance was provided by the Management Information section of UNMAS in Khartoum. Over a three year period the CHF supported the completion of the survey in Sudan’s mine-affected states. Table 1 summarizes the survey timeline.

TABLE 1

SURVEY TIMELINE

Phase I: March - September 2006 Eastern Equatoria Phase II: September 2006 - February 2007 Blue Nile Kassala, Sennar, Red Sea, Gadaref, Phase III: February - July 2007 Northern Bahr El Ghazal Phase IV: June 2007 - January 2008 Western Bahr El Ghazal, Lakes Phase V: June 2007 - January 2008 Central Equatoria Phase VI: November 2007 - August 2008 Western Equatoria, Unity, Warrab Phase VII: June 2008- June 2009 Upper Nile, Jonglei Phase VIII: September 2008- January 2009 Southern Kordofan

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 7

SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

The Landmine Impact Survey identified 296 impacted communities in 15 states. Twenty-five (8%) of the communities were categorized as high impacted, 85 (29%) as medium impacted and 186 (63%) as low impacted. The survey found that an estimated 1,854, 435 people live in these impacted communities. The survey teams also asked each impacted community how many IDPs and refugees were expected to return. The LIS identified 679,018 IDPs in 265 impacted communities as probable returnees in the future. Compared to the current total population, the population associated with mine impact is approximately 2,500,000, or six percent of the estimated 39 million people in Sudan, the population according to the preliminary results of the national census conducted in 2008.

As seen in Map 1, the LIS found that the landmine problem is largely confined to five of the 25 states and 48 of 130 counties and administrative units in the 15 mine-affected states. All of the 25 high impacted communities and 71 of the 85 medium impacted communities are located in these five states. The LIS identified 605 Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs) with an unofficial estimate of 106 km2 in total extent. SAC stresses

MAP 1 that this measure of SUMMARY OF THE LIS RESULTS area is not an estimate of the area occupied by landmines/UXOs in Sudan but rather a careful documentation of areas that are blocked to community use by mines or fear of mines. Experience has shown that more lengthy general and/or technical surveys will result in significantly reduced areas indicative of actual landmine pollution. From a community point of view the difference is academic – whether they are not planting crops or using water sources for fear of real mines or only fear alone does not matter.

The largest mined region consists of the 1,060 kilometer stretch of land from Western Equatoria to Eastern Equatoria with the state

8 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

of Central Equatoria containing the most impacted communities in the country. The other major impacted areas are the border areas with Eritrea in Kassala state and Ethiopia in Blue Nile state and the Kadugli area in Southern Kordofan where the Nuba Mountains are located. These areas contain 77% of the impacted communities. In sharp contrast, the survey found eight states with fewer than 10 impacted communities. Of these eight states, three were found to have only one impacted community and one (Sennar) not to have any impacted communities. A summary of the survey results are shown in Table 2.

At the start of the survey, the government of Sudan informed the LIS senior staff that six states in the north (Northern, Nile, Northern Kordofan, Khartoum, El Gezira, and White Nile) were not regarded as having a landmine problem, even though it is thought that mines from World War II may exist on the border with Libya.1 The three Darfur states could not be surveyed because of safety concerns for the survey teams though the United Nations has received few reports on suspected mines in Darfur from the local authorities or NGOs.2 In summary, the LIS found that the landmine problem is largely confined to five of the 25 states located in the south, central and eastern parts of the country. Note that as of February 1994, Sudan was reorganized into 26 wilayaat (states) but Western Kordofan split into two parts in August 2005 with the northern part merging with Northern Kordofan and the southern part merging with Southern Kordofan, hence there are 25 states in Sudan today as shown in Map 2.

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF THE LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY RESULTS IN THE 16 SURVEYED STATES

Impacted Communities Estimated Impacted Surveyed State Total Number High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact Population Central Equatoria 77 4 28 45 1,051,055 Southern Kordofan 48 2 9 37 292,542 Eastern Equatoria 43 11 22 10 83,087 Blue Nile 33 2 2 29 7,826 Kassala 28 6 10 12 98,715 Jonglei 17 0 3 14 74,409 Western Equatoria 16 0 5 11 201,317 Upper Nile 11 0 1 10 16,212 Western Bahr El Ghazal 9 0 2 7 7,820 Northern Bahr El Ghazal 5 0 0 5 4,510 Gadaref 3 0 1 2 1,642 Warrab 3 0 1 2 8,300 Lakes 1 0 1 0 1,200 Red Sea 1 0 0 1 4,000 Unity 1 0 0 1 1,800 Sennar 0 0 0 0 0 Total 296 25 85 186 1,854,435 Percentage of Total 100% 8% 29% 63%

The results of the LIS were released to the public and posted on the Sudan Mine Action Program website (www.sudan-map.org) after each phase was completed. Although the priority in mine action throughout the survey was road clearance the release of the data allowed for further surveying and verification of the survey findings. Since the first state survey was completed in September 2006 until

1 See www.sudan-map.org 2 See Landmine Monitor 2008.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 9

MAP 2

LANDMINE STATUS ON COMPLETION OF THE LIS, BY STATE November 2009 when UNMAO posted its latest IMSMA monthly report, 241 of the 605 suspected hazard areas (SHA) have been tasked for technical survey.

RETROFIT

A key benefit of the LIS in Sudan was to simultaneously conduct a verification process for each of the dangerous areas recorded in the national database. This process, called a “retrofit” of the database, meant that every Dangerous Area (DA) already in the database at the time a state survey began would be verified on the ground by the field teams. The government of Sudan, UNMAO, and the Survey Action Center believed the LIS presented a timely opportunity to assist UNMAO in updating its database and verifying the DAs that had been collected since 2002.

The retrofit involved more than just confirming whether a DA existed or not. The survey found that the DAs in the UNMAO database took on many forms. They are summarized into six categories: Confirmed SHA, UXO Spot Clearance task, No Longer Exists, Inaccessible, Not Linked to a Community and No Coordinates. The retrofit found that 78% of the 1,186 DAs were confirmed as either SHAs, UXO spot clearance or they no longer existed. Specifically, of the 1,186 DAs in which UNMAO requested verification the LIS survey teams confirmed 323 as suspected hazard areas, 143 as UXO spot clearance tasks and 456 were confirmed as no longer existing because they had been cleared, either officially or unofficially. In each case when the DA was cancelled the local community leaders concurred that the DA no longer contained mines. The other 22% were not accessible at the time of the survey (143); had no coordinates (20); or were not linked to any community. Given all the bad communications and inevitable chaos of the early days of the UN program, these retrofit numbers confirm a remarkably sound database. As a result of the LIS retrofit this database is more accurate than ever.

10 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

UXO SPOT CLEARANCE

Decades of conflict have littered Sudan with unexploded ordnance (UXO). This is reflected in the August 2009 UNMAO report stating that 885,770 UXO had been found since 2002 when the UN mine action program began. The LIS identified 423 UXO spot clearance tasks as compared to 605 suspected hazard areas.

Eastern Equatoria, Central Equatoria and Blue Nile account for 224, or 53%, of the 423 spot clearance tasks. Eastern Equatoria also has more UXO spot clearance sites than any other state. Five states have fewer than ten tasks and no UXO spot clearance sites were found in Sennar, which is also free of landmines.

IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES

Internally Displaced People (IDPs)

The return of refugees and IDPs to their pre-war homes is a priority established under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in January 2005. While other concerns such as education and employment hinder returns, landmines are also considered in the equation of if and when a family should leave their current domicile and return home. The LIS identified 679,018 potential returnees in 265 impacted communities in 15 states. They ranged from 60 in Unity state to 247,000 in Central Equatoria, the most mine-affected state in Sudan. Jonglei reported 145,000 potential returnees and combined with Central Equatoria 57% of the IDPs in mine impacted communities are from these two states.

Some states reported IDP populations much higher than the current population, meaning that if they return the stress on the community infrastructure could be tremendous. For example, Jonglei, reported that if the 144,948 IDPs returned home to the mine impacted communities the cumulative population of the communities would almost triple in size. In Blue Nile the population in the 33 impacted communities would jump from 7,826 to 68,000. Although Red Sea state reported only one impacted community it reported if the 2,100 IDPs from the community returned home the population of the village would increase from 4,000 to 6,000. Since the lack of infrastructure, schools and economic opportunities impede returns as much if not more than landmines communities that will see a doubling or tripling of its population will require substantial development inputs.

The findings from the LIS on IDPs is comparable to the data collected by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC) in Oslo and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) tracking of returnees in 10 states in South Sudan. The IDMC has estimated there were 4.5 million IDPs in January 2005 when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in January 2005. As of May 2009, the IDMC estimates that 2.24 million IDPs had returned either through organized returns or spontaneously. As of June 2009 IOM estimates that 928,000 people have returned to their pre-war place of origin in states where the LIS estimates 679,000 IDPs are expected to return to 265 mine impacted communities. However, it is not known how many have returned home since the survey concluded.

Blockages to Socio-Economic Resources

The LIS found that landmines block people’s access to socio-economic resources differently in each state. Four different types of blockages are the leading blockage among the states. For example, roads are the most cited blockage in six states, rain-fed land in four other states, while housing and fixed pastureland is cited most in three other states. Landmines in the Equatoria region impact housing more than in other areas. Water as a blockage was reported in 82% of the high and medium impacted

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 11

communities, the highest rate for any of the ten blockages. Migratory pasture, while not ranked first among blockages, was ranked high in Eastern Equatoria and Southern Kordofan. Impacted communities in Blue Nile reported roads as a blockage more than other states. Roads in Jonglei state were reported more often as a blockage than other types. Overall, roads were reported as a blockage in low impacted communities more than in high and medium ones. Although the survey results clearly indicate mines affect some types of blockages more than others the geographical distribution of the blockages indicate the diversity of Sudan.

More than twice as many communities said mines were blocking rain-fed cropland, roads, and housing than the other seven blockages. The data indicates that fixed pasture, non-agricultural land, and water were equally reported across states while infrastructure or irrigated croplands were hardly affected.

As a result it may be better to set priorities based on socio-economic blockages at the state level rather than the national level. Although clearly still a hardship, the survey reports that people have found sufficient alternatives to help mitigate the severity of this blockage in about 20% of the cases.

CASUALTIES

The Survey Working Group protocols define a “recent victim” as a person injured or killed by a mine or UXO incident in the 24 months prior to the community survey. The LIS identified 104 casualties fitting these criteria, of whom 37 were killed and 67 injured. As is commonly seen in other mine-affected countries, the vast majority of casualties are men and boys. In Sudan 83% of the casualties were male while 17% were female. Almost 60% of the casualties were between 15-44 years of age but 28 boys and girls from 0-14 years old were involved in mine incidents. The livelihood activities of herding and collecting food and water as well as travelling comprised 60% of the activities at the time of the incident.

Not surprisingly considering the poor infrastructure in rural Sudan, 56% of the casualties did not receive emergency care after being involved in a mine incident. Somewhat indicative of services available in rural Sudan, no survivors reported receiving physical rehabilitation or vocational training including the 24 survivors with amputations.

INACCESSIBLE COMMUNITIES

One of the major questions in planning the survey was how the lack of access to mine impacted communities would affect the value of the survey. The initial survey in Eastern Equatoria demonstrated that movement was not as difficult as anticipated though road conditions were usually poor and rivers were not easily crossed. Good planning and recruiting staff locally increased the knowledge of the area. While rented vehicles and motor bikes were the primary means of transportation communities were sometimes accessible only on

foot, by boat, or by animal. The survey teams were VILLAGERS HELPING AT RIVER CROSSING KAPOTA EAST COUNTY, EASTERN EQUATORIA (2006) ultimately able to visit 1,494 of the 1,702 possibly impacted communities during the three year survey.

12 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sudan is a large country with varied terrain and climate and still recovering from decades of war. Marsh areas infested with snakes limited access in Unity state. On-going fighting among various groups and factions and activity by the Lord’s Resistance Army also limited movement and access in some areas including 15 possibly impacted communities in Western Equatoria where a payam commissioner was killed in an attack just prior to a planned meeting with the survey team. In contrast, Central Equatoria, the most mine-affected state in Sudan, all possibly impacted communities were accessible as they were surveyed during the dry season and the infrastructure and the roads were in relatively good condition. In Upper Nile state the survey ended abruptly in May 2009 due to ongoing fighting. The combination of these factors led to unsuccessful attempts in visiting 208 possibly impacted communities according to the Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC). Another 188 communities either could not be found or when reached, were found to be abandoned. In the absence of local informants these communities could not be surveyed.

PAST MINE ACTION

On September 19, 2002 the Government of Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLM), and the United Nations signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding UN mine action support to Sudan. In the absence of a peace agreement mine action donors were cautious in allocating funds for clearance resulting in few international and national operators. The few were limited to the Nuba Mountain region in the current state of Southern Kordofan where international observers were monitoring a ceasefire agreement and in the area near Rumbek, the former capital of South Sudan, in the present state of Lakes. When the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in January 2005 mine action activities were able to expand over time. It was reported that in 2008 Sudan Mine Action was a $39 million annual program.3

The LIS collected information on past mine action in mine impacted communities. These findings are not a description or reflection of the full mine action program Sudan. Instead the information serves as an indicator of mine action on reducing risk and past priorities. Mine Risk Education (MRE) was the most reported activity. While it is difficult to directly attribute MRE to a change in behavior or fewer incidents it should be noted that the LIS did not identify one victim in a Low Impact community, where MRE was chiefly targeted.

However, more interesting is the 77 impacted communities that reported clearance in some form took place prior to the survey. Unlike the data on recent victims that has a 24 month window prior to the survey reporting on past mine action was not time bound, thus making it more difficult to analyze. Nevertheless, the finding that clearance had occurred in 77 currently impacted communities means clearance did not completely eliminate the landmine problem. On the other hand, it is an encouraging sign that during a period when the major and legitimate priority of the UN program was to clear transport routes, work was still beginning at the community level. Of the 77 communities reporting clearance prior to the survey 33 were in High and Medium impacted communities, of which the presence of suspected hazard areas was reported and possibly some incidents occurred after clearance.

FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION

The LIS was conducted based on the availability of funds resulting in eight phases. The survey began in August 2005 with funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). SAC sub- contracted the Mines Advisory Group (MAG) to conduct the field work in Eastern Equatoria with SAC

3 See Landmine Monitor 2009.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 13

responsible for quality control, training, and the database. The other seven phases were contracts between SAC and UNMAS as shown in Table 3. UNMAS provided the funding from the Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) through the United Nations Mine Action Service Voluntary Trust Fund (UNMAS/VTF) and the European Commission. The contracts ran consecutively and over a four year period there was no break in the survey caused by a funding shortage. The total cost of the survey was $4,336,977. The implementing partners consisting of MAG, SAC, and Handicap International (HI) surveyed 13, 2, and 1 states, respectively. Throughout the survey SAC maintained an international team consisting of a program director, an operations/training advisor and a database manager to train, manage, and monitor the implementing partners. The details on logistics and staffing are provided in the annex.

TABLE 3

FUNDING BY CONTRACTING PHASE

Sudan Contract Implementing Phase Amount Surveyed States Donor Partner Start Date End Date 1 $577,777.78 Eastern Equatoria CIDA MAG 8/23/2005 8/31/2006 2 $333,737.68 Blue Nile UNMAS MAG 9/1/2006 2/15/2007 Red Sea, Gadaref, Sennar, Northern 3 $565,565.00 UNMAS MAG 12/21/2006 6/30/2007 Bahr El Ghazel, Kassala Western Bahr el Ghazel, Warrap 4 $610,425.00 UNMAS MAG 6/1/2007 1/31/2008 (partial) 5 $503,070.00 Central Equatoria UNMAS MAG 6/1/2007 11/30/2007 Warrap (completed), Lakes, Unity, 6 $474,538.00 UNMAS MAG 11/1/2007 8/31/2008 Western Equatoria 7 $986,684.00 Jonglei, Upper Nile UNMAS SAC, HI 6/1/2008 6/30/2009 8 $285,179.80 Southern Kordofan UNMAS SAC 9/1/2008 1/31/2009

Total $4,336,977.26

CONCLUSION

The Landmine Impact Survey for Sudan has documented the nature and extent of the impact of landmines on communities in Sudan. The LIS estimates that no more than 10% of the total number of impacted communities in Sudan may have been missed by the survey. Given the operating conditions in Sudan this is a very good result in terms of coverage. This data will enhance prioritization for the three operational pillars of mine action – mine risk education, victim assistance and land release. For purposes of land release, the LIS has already released some areas recorded in the database prior to the survey. Knowing where the impacted communities are located is a very good beginning to actually delineating where and how large the actual mine fields and UXO areas are. The problem has been focused by the LIS on less than 20% of the originally suspected communities. Now experienced operator teams can proceed directly to the impacted communities for more focused general survey, technical survey and ultimately clearance. Preliminary data collected on land release in other countries indicates that almost two thirds of areas suspected by the communities can be released by more intensive general survey and almost twenty percent can be released by technical survey. This leaves less than 20% of suspected land that will need to be actually cleared.

The Landmine Impact Survey in Sudan found a landmine impact largely confined to three areas. More than three quarters of the impacted communities, suspected hazard areas, recent victims and UXO

14 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Spot Clearance tasks are located in the following three areas: the Equatoria region, the border areas with Eritrea and Ethiopia, and the Kadugli region in Southern Kordofan. The remainder of the impacted communities in the 15 impacted states are in sparsely populated areas. The 11 states comprising 67 impacted communities are approximately equal in area to Mozambique.

Central Equatoria state leads in every mine impact indicator by a large margin. The diversity of Sudan is illustrated by how landmines affect each state in a different manner. While the survey found that mines blocked access to rain-fed cropland, housing, and water the socio-economic blockages affected each state differently.

During the two year period prior to the survey in each state there were 104 reported casualties. Little mine clearance was reported in the impacted communities and those that did report clearance prior to the survey still reported remaining suspected hazard areas.

Overall, the LIS found landmine impact in Sudan to be concentrated in a few states. The current plan to transition mine action authority from the United Nations to the government of Sudan is to occur in 2011. Based on the LIS results, there should be optimism that the UN will be handing over a very small remaining problem.

NOTES ▬ The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the Survey Action Center and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the United Nations or the governments of Sudan or Canada. ▬ The official administrative divisions for the five northern states surveyed in Sudan (Blue Nile, Gadaref, Kassala, Red Sea, and Southern Kordofan) are: locality, administrative unit, and then community. The eleven remaining states that the LIS surveyed are in southern Sudan which uses the administrative divisions of: county, payam, and then boma (community). ▬ The boundary lines for the administrative divisions presented in the maps of this report are indicative and not intended to be taken as officially accepted. The maps may display symbols in a different state/county than the data tables indicate. The administrative divisions used in the data tables should be taken as authoritative for the purposes of this report.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 15

Background of the Landmine Impact Survey

rowing out of the wide collaborative efforts that led to the International Campaign to Ban G Landmines and the Mine Ban Treaty, Landmine Impact Surveys (LIS) are executed to meet the needs of the international humanitarian mine action community, national authorities, donors, and mine action implementers. The overall LIS vision is to “facilitate the prioritizing of human, material, and financial resources supporting humanitarian mine action at the national, regional, and global levels.”

There are two things that the LIS is not. First, it is not a sample – the LIS is an inventory of all known suspected impacted communities, and all the data collected is geo-referenced by community location and stored in a standardized database. Second, it is not a listing of minefields – rather, it is a record of all known Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs), as identified by the communities under threat. The LIS provides, often for the first time, a clear definition of the extent of the problem: the number of impacted communities and the number of SHAs affecting those communities. The LIS is the initial step in the identification of mine/ERW areas. The next step is targeted area reduction and local cancellation work in the impacted communities identified by the LIS.

Landmine Impact Surveys provide the three major partners of mine action: national authorities, donors, and implementing agencies with a common dataset, one which SAC hopes will also prove useful to economic development agencies.

This data is different from pre-survey data in three significant ways. First, the unit of measure for the landmine problem has been shifted from the number of mines or danger areas of contaminated territory, with the LIS taking as its unit of measure communities impacted by landmines. Second, virtually all the information in the LIS is primary information gathered at the community level from those who live with the threat of landmines in their daily lives. Third, a methodology is employed with the goal of the complete enumeration of every SHA in every impacted community. With the conclusion of the Landmine Impact Survey in Sudan, impact from landmine contamination is now categorized from the state to the community level. The data collected during the LIS is listed in the following section.

DESCRIPTION OF KEY INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THE LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY

Community Background Unique ID of region-state- county or locality- payam or administrative unit-community Community reference point description and GPS coordinates Name, gender, and age of participants in community interview

Type of Settlement Facilities: Transport, health, education, infrastructure Current population and expected number of returnees Main economic base of community

16 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Past Mine Action History of armed conflict in the community Mine/UXO awareness provided in the last 24 months Marking/survey carried out in the last 24 months Clearance carried out in the last 24 months

Landmine Victims More Than Two Years Prior to the Survey Number of people killed by mine/UXO Number of people injured by mine/UXO

Recent Landmine Victims (Within Prior Two Years of the Survey) Number of people killed by mine/UXO Number of people injured by mine/UXO Name, age at time of incident, and gender of each recent victim Number of landmine/UXO survivors living in the community Name, if any, and survey designation of SHA where incident occurred Fatality or injury? Occupation at time of incident Current occupation of survivors Activity when the incident occurred Wounds received as a result of incident Description of victim assistance given during the last 24 months

Suspected Hazard Area (SHA) Name, if any, and survey designation of SHA GPS coordinates of safe viewing site and estimated size of SHA Digital photograph of SHA Digital photograph of community-drawn sketch map of SHA Contamination type (mine and/or UXO) Terrain: Vegetation type and landscape type

Blockage to Socio-Economic Resources Caused by Mines/UXO Each SHA may be reported to block access to one or more of the following: Irrigated cropland Rain-fed cropland Fixed Pasture (used year round) Migratory Pasture (used seasonally) Drinking water (for human consumption) Water for other uses (irrigation, bathing, laundry, fishing, animals, other) Housing Roads and paths Other infrastructure (school, bridge, power line, factory, market, oil field, etc) Non-agricultural land (foraging for food, fuel, shelter, medicinal plants, etc))

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 17

This data, when analyzed, defines the landmine problem in terms of scale, type, location, hazard, infrastructure, and socioeconomic impact experienced by local communities, fostering the development of national strategies and operational plans with well-defined immediate, intermediate, and end-state objectives.

The data from the LIS provides a tool for national and state planning. This report is not a substitute for a national plan. It does not relieve national authorities or mine action professionals of their collective responsibility to gain a full understanding of the survey results and information from other sources such as national development plans, and to use these results to set priorities, mobilize funding, and allocate mine action resources in the most effective and rational manner.

The survey data can be used to set priorities at the national, state, county/locality, or the payam/administrative-unit level. Whether the priority or particular interest of a donor, a government ministry, a nongovernmental organization (NGO), or the United Nations is improving agriculture, ensuring access to water, clearing roads, conducting mine risk education (MRE), building schools and health clinics, or assisting landmine survivors, widows, and other vulnerable groups, the data from the LIS has transformed the unknown in these areas into information and knowledge. The challenge now is to use this knowledge to bring about positive, constructive action in the development of Sudan and to end the threat of landmines to its people.

18 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Survey Results & Findings

Scope of the Landmine Problem

NUMBER OF IMPACTED COMMUNITIES

The LIS identified 296 communities in 15 states as impacted by landmines/UXO. Of the 16 states surveyed only Sennar was found to have no impact from mines. Using the “Survey Working Group Protocol Eight: Impact Scoring”, adopted by National Mine Action Authority (NMAA) and the South Sudan Demining Commission (SSDC) as the basis to categorize impacted communities, Table 4 shows that the LIS categorized 25 communities (8%) as high-impact, 85 (29%) as medium-impact, and 186 (63%) as low-impact. There are 605 Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs) associated with the impacted communities. Even though the high and medium impacted communities comprise just 37% of the impacted communities over half of the SHAs are in these high and medium communities. High and medium impacted communities average almost three SHAs per communities while the low impacted communities average approximately two SHAs.

The LIS estimates that TABLE 4 1,854,435 people COMMUNITIES, SHAS, AND POPULATION, BY IMPACT CATEGORY are living in the Impact Impacted Communities SHAs Impacted Population impacted Category Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage communities. High 25 8% 78 13% 81,220 4% When the Medium 85 29% 238 39% 528,361 28% expected Low 186 63% 289 48% 1,244,854 67% 679,018 Total 296 100% 605 100% 1,854,435 100% returnees in the impacted communities are added to the current population, over 2.5 million people may eventually live in the impacted communities. This represents approximately six percent of the estimated 39 million people4 in Sudan.

As Table 5 shows the 296 impacted communities are concentrated in five states and more than one-quarter of the impacted communities are located in Central Equatoria state. The 229 impacted communities in Central Equatoria, Southern Kordofan, Eastern Equatoria, Blue Nile and Kassala states comprise 77% of the impacted communities and represent 83% of the population in impacted communities. The remaining 67 impacted communities and 17% of COMMUNITY INTERVIEW, KAPOETA TOWN, EASTERN EQUATORIA (2006) the population living in impacted communities are dispersed over 10 states. Red Sea, Unity and Lakes reported only one impacted community and the LIS found Sennar not to be impacted.

4 Preliminary results of the national census in April 2009. See http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/sudan-census-committee-say-sudan.html

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 21

TABLE 5

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES AND POPULATIONS, BY STATE

Impacted Communities Impacted Surveyed State Total Number High Impact Medium Impact Low Impact Population Central Equatoria 77 4 28 45 1,051,055 Southern Kordofan 48 2 9 37 292,542 Eastern Equatoria 43 11 22 10 83,087 Blue Nile 33 2 2 29 7,826 Kassala 28 6 10 12 98,715 Jonglei 17 0 3 14 74,409 Western Equatoria 16 0 5 11 201,317 Upper Nile 11 0 1 10 16,212 Western Bahr El Ghazal 9 0 2 7 7,820 Northern Bahr El Ghazal 5 0 0 5 4,510 Gadaref 3 0 1 2 1,642 Warrab 3 0 1 2 8,300 Lakes 1 0 1 0 1,200 Red Sea 1 0 0 1 4,000 Unity 1 0 0 1 1,800 Sennar 0 0 0 0 0 Total 296 25 85 186 1,854,435 Percentage 100% 8% 29% 63%

INACCESSIBLE COMMUNITIES

Sudan is a large country with a varied terrain and climate that is recovering from decades of war. The preliminary opinion collection phase of the survey identified 1,702 possibly impacted communities to visit during the three year survey. In some states marsh and areas without roads prevented access. On-going fighting among various groups and factions and activity by the Lord’s Resistance Army near the Uganda border also limited movement and access in some areas.

LAFON COUNTY, LOHUTOK PAYAM, LOMING BOMA, EASTERN EQUATORIA (2006)

5 See www.sudan-map.org 6 See Landmine Monitor 2008.

22 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

As shown in Table 6, the TABLE 6 combination of these factors COMMUNITIES NOT ACCESSIBLE, NOT LOCATED, OR ABANDONED led to unsuccessful attempts in visiting 208 possibly Not Found or Number of Possibly Inaccessible Abandoned Impacted impacted communities. Surveyed State Communities Communities Communities to Visit Another 188 communities Upper Nile 80 3 129 either could not be found or Jonglei 35 26 147 when reached, were found Unity 32 15 121 to be abandoned. In the Western Equatoria 15 0 54 absence of local informants Eastern Equatoria 12 58 190 these communities could not Western Bahr El Ghazal 8 3 55 be surveyed. Kassala 6 2 97 Gadaref 5 0 60 The survey teams could Red Sea 5 0 42 not visit possibly impacted Northern Bahr El Ghazal 4 1 85 communities for a variety of Southern Kordofan 4 75 369 reasons. For example, Unity Warrab 2 0 38 state is one of the most Blue Nile 0 5 109 difficult states to access, Lakes 0 0 29 except north of Bentiu Central Equatoria 0 0 174 where the oil companies are Sennar 0 0 3 located. The difficulty in Total 208 188 1,702 Unity is a combination of a lack of roads and the presence of large marsh areas that are infested with colonies of snakes. Thirty-two communities in Unity were not accessible. However, considering that only one of 87 communities visited in Unity state was impacted and the local informants seemed generally uninformed about a landmine problem in the state, it is not expected many of the 32 inaccessible communities are impacted by mines.

Jonglei and Upper Nile states also have large numbers of communities that could not be visited at the time of the survey. During the survey in Jonglei, Pibor and Pochalla counties were not accessible due to ongoing fighting that resulted in the deaths of one thousand women and children. In Western Equatoria the 15 communities were inaccessible because the payam commissioner was killed during a Lord’s Resistance Army attack just prior to a scheduled meeting with the survey teams, forcing the teams to immediately evacuate the area. In Southern Kordofan the 75 communities not found or abandoned is the result of UNMAO unable to link Danger Areas in the IMSMA database to a community based on the only available gazetteer at the time, which the LIS proved to be inaccurate. However, only four communities were not accessible in Southern Kordofan, indicating good survey coverage as well as demonstrating that movement within Southern Kordofan was very good. In contrast, Central Equatoria, the most mine-affected state in Sudan, was completely accessible as it was surveyed during the dry season and the infrastructure and roads were in relatively good condition. When the inaccessible communities in Upper Nile stare are excluded just seven percent of the 1,702 possibly impacted communities could not be visited. The 80 inaccessible communities in Upper Nile state in Table 6 are the direct result of renewed fighting in eight counties that ended the survey prematurely in May 2009. The report on Upper Nile found in the section on State Reports provides further detail on the LIS in the state.

When the survey teams came across an abandoned community, they followed the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for surveying such communities. The survey teams would ask the closest

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 23

community about the circumstances of why the community was abandoned. If the presence of landmines was the reason, the survey teams would conduct a full interview with the neighboring community and when possible with former residents of the community. Usually, the inhabitants of the abandoned community were not far away. The LIS found landmines were seldom the reason the community had been abandoned and local officials in only 19 abandoned communities in five states confirmed the communities contained mines as shown in Table 7.

TABLE 7

ABANDONED COMMUNITIES WITH LANDMINES

Impact State County Payam Community Classification 1 Central Equatoria Lainya Wuji Dongoro Medium 2 Yei Otogo Mongo Low 3 Mugwo Jombu Medium 4 Yei Rwonyi High 5 Kajo Keji Ngepo Rodo Low 6 Morobo Gulumbi Girili High 7 Lojulo Kende Medium 8 Juba Lobonok Kit One Medium 9 Lirya Ngulere High 10 Terekeka Tindilo Mundari Bura High 11 Eastern Equatoria Torit Lowoi Longairo High 12 Budi Komiri Monita Medium 13 Western Bahr El Ghazal Raja Diem Zubeir Diem Zubeir Low 14 Wau Bessilia Bessilia Low 15 Kuajiena Kuajiena Low 16 Jur River Rocroc Dong Wad Alelo Low 17 Southern Kordofan Southern Kordofan Kadugli Kalkada Low 18 Warrab Tonj Tonj Tonj Low 19 Gogrial Gogrial Gogrial Low

RECENT VICTIMS

The LIS defines a recent victim as a casualty within 24 months prior to the field work. Information on each casualty is collected and the information is entered into the national database at UNMAO. The LIS identified 104 recent victims in 44 of the 296 impacted communities. Of these 44 communities, 15 reported three or more casualties. Table 8 shows there are few recent victims in impacted communities.

EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES IN IMPACTED COMMUNITIES

The return of refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) to their pre-war homes is a priority established under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in January 2005. At the request of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) the community interview included a question about the number of refugees or IDPs that were expected to return. The LIS demonstrated the value of how the survey can assist in the planning of repatriation programs and priority setting in mine action and to assist the return of refugees and IDPs. The LIS did not determine whether the return of the IDPs and refugees was contingent on clearing the SHAs in the communities although it is assumed that

24 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

landmines are considered in the equation TABLE 8 of if and when a family should leave their RECENT VICTIMS REPORTED IN A COMMUNITY, BY FREQUENCY current domicile and return home along Number of Number of Communities Percentage with such concerns as education and Recent Victims in with This Number of All Impacted livelihood opportunities. the Community of Recent Victims Communities 0 252 85% Table 9 shows that 247,562 or 36%, of 1 13 4.4% the IDPs in mine impacted communities 2 16 5.4% are from Central Equatoria, the most 3 7 2.4% mine-affected state in Sudan. When the 4 5 1.7% IDPs from Jonglei are added 57% of the 5 1 0.3% IDPs from mine impacted communities 6 1 0.3% are from the two states of Central 7 1 0.3% Equatoria and Jonglei. However, all the Total 296 100% impacted states reported IDPs from impacted communities.

Some states reported IDP populations that are much higher than the current population. For example, Jonglei, reported that if the 144,948 IDPs returned home to the mine impacted communities the cumulative population of the communities would almost triple in size. In Blue Nile state the population in the 33 impacted communities could potentially jump from 7,826 to 68,000. Although Red Sea state reported only one impacted community it reported if the 2,100 IDPs from the community returned home the population of the village would increase from 4,000 to 6,000. These examples of a possible

TABLE 9

EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES IN THE 296 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES, BY STATE

IOM Estimated Current Population Number of Impacted IDPs/Returnees Expected in Spontaneous Returns Living in Impacted Communities Surveyed State Impacted Communities as of June 2009 Communities Expecting IDPs Central Equatoria 247,562 57,735 1,051,055 77 Jonglei 144,948 31,977 74,409 17 Southern Kordofan 72,089 298,098 292,542 44 Blue Nile 61,431 n/a 7,826 31 Eastern Equatoria 53,434 36,836 83,087 27 Western Equatoria 46,677 27,086 201,317 16 Kassala 27,194 n/a 98,715 19 Western Bahr El Ghazal 12,420 45,554 7,820 9 Upper Nile 7,612 19,549 16,212 11 Red Sea 2,100 n/a 4,000 1 Gadaref 1,811 n/a 1,642 3 Warrab 700 49,302 8,300 3 Northern Bahr El Ghazal 630 226,330 4,510 5 Lakes 350 130,322 1,200 1 Unity 60 6,051 1,800 1 Sennar 0 0 0 0 Total 679,018 928,840 1,854,435 265

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 25

explosion in the local population should be factored into the planning for both mine action and development assistance. Since the lack of infrastructure, schools and economic opportunities impede returns as much if not more than landmines, communities that will see a doubling or tripling of its population will require substantial development inputs.

Other available data on IDPs and returnees in Sudan support the findings of the LIS. In May 2009 the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center based in Oslo estimated there were 4.5 million IDPs in January 2005 when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in January 2005. As of May 2009 it is estimated 2.24 million IDPs had returned either through organized returns or spontaneously. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) tracks the number of returnees in 10 states in South Sudan. As of June 2009 IOM estimated that 928,000 people had returned to their pre-war place of origin in states. The LIS estimates 679,000 IDPs are expected to return to 265 mine impacted communities. It is not known how many have returned home since the survey was conducted.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTED COMMUNITIES

The LIS found 296 impacted communities in 48 counties across 15 states. Prior to the survey the government of Sudan had declared six states in northern Sudan not impacted and insecurity in the Darfur region prevented access for the survey teams in the three states that comprise Darfur. Detailed survey results for each state follow in later sections. Data from the LIS also shows the extent of community mine contamination in important geographical and political regions. This section first shows the country-wide distribution of mine-affected communities and then presents a brief focus on the following important areas: the Equatoria region in the south, Juba County in Central TABLE 10 Equatoria, the oil concession areas, the COUNTRYWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTED COMMUNITIES, SHAS, AND RECENT VICTIMS border areas with neighboring Eritrea and Ethiopia, and the Abbyei Locality in Southern Kordofan. Number of Impacted Recent Surveyed State Communities SHAs Victims Countrywide Central Equatoria 77 214 20 The LIS found that the landmine problem is Southern Kordofan 48 98 7 concentrated in a few states and areas. As Eastern Equatoria 43 83 28 Table 10 and Map 3 indicate the vast Blue Nile 33 61 10 majority of impacted communities, SHAs, Kassala 28 56 32 and recent victims are located in Central Jonglei 17 21 2 and Eastern Equatoria, Southern Kordofan Western Equatoria 16 30 0 where the Nuba Mountains are located, Upper Nile 11 12 0 Kassala which borders Eritrea, and Blue Nile Western Bahr El Ghazal 9 10 2 which borders Ethiopia. Aside from Kassala, Northern Bahr El Ghazal 5 7 0 states in eastern Sudan are not seriously Warrab 3 4 1 impacted by mines. Gadaref 3 4 0 Lakes 1 1 2 Red Sea 1 2 0 Unity 1 2 0 Sennar 0 0 0 Total 296 605 104

26 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Equatoria Region MAP 3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF IMPACTED COMMUNITIES The three states of Western, Central and Eastern Equatoria comprise the Equatoria region in South Sudan. As Table 11 indicates the landmine problem in Sudan is centered in this region. As of August 2009 UNMAO has worked on 170 of the original 327 SHAs in the Equatoria region.

Map 4 below is a composite of survey results from Eastern Equatoria in 2006, Central Equatoria in February 2008, and Western Equatoria in March 2008. The three-state Equatoria region contains one- third of the impacted counties, almost half of the impacted communities, over half of the SHAs, over half of the expected IDPs in mine impacted communities and almost three quarters of the people living in mine impacted communities. The cities of Juba, Yei and Torit are located in this swath of area that stretches 1,060 kilometers from the far western areas in Western Equatoria to the border with Ethiopia in Eastern Equatoria.

TABLE 11

EQUATORIA REGION AND THE REMAINDER OF THE COUNTRY

IDPs & Number of Number of Returnees Expected Impacted Number of Impacted Number Impacted in Impacted Surveyed State Communities Counties Counties of SHAs Population Communities Central, Eastern, & 136 25 16 327 1,335,459 347,673 Western Equatoria The Other Twelve 160 105 32 278 518,976 331,345 Impacted States Total 296 130 48 605 1,854,435 679,018

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 27

MAP 4

SUSPECTED HAZARD AREAS IN EQUATORIA REGION

MAP 5 SUSPECTED HAZARD AREAS IN JUBA COUNTY IN CENTRAL EQUATORIA Juba County

The town of Juba in Central Equatoria was under siege for most of the conflict and intensive fighting occurred in the surrounding area during the conflict. It has been the capital of South Sudan since 2005. Map 5 illustrates the extent of the mine contamination in and around the vicinity of Juba when the survey was completed in Central Equatoria in February 2008.

28 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Oil Concession Areas

Oil revenues are critical to the economies of both North and South Sudan. In Map 6 below the bold lines indicate the oil concession areas according to a September 2009 U.S. Government Department of Energy report on global energy sources. While the map shows SHAs located within the oil concession areas, the LIS did not find any mine impacted communities near active oil fields. The oil concessions are not situated where landmines are a major problem.

MAP 6

SUSPECTED HAZARD AREAS IN THE OIL CONCESSION AREAS

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 29

Border Areas with Eritrea and Ethiopia

The landmine problem in Sudan is generally associated with South Sudan as a result of the long conflict between the North and South. In addition, as shown in Map 7, the LIS found significant impact in the border areas with Eritrea in Kassala state and Ethiopia in Blue Nile state, which is also a remnant of the north/south conflict as SPLA had operational bases in both Eritrea and Ethiopia during the conflict as well as the Eritrean insurgents having some bases in Sudan. The closest SHA to Khartoum – 387 kilometers - is located in Kassala.

MAP 7

SUSPECTED HAZARD AREAS IN BORDER AREAS WITH ERITREA AND ETHIOPIA

30 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Abbyei Locality

Just north of the border with Warrab, in the western part of Southern Kordofan, Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) in Abbyei locality identified four administrative units with 102 communities of which 36 were recorded as possibly impacted and 66 communities were certified as not impacted. As Table 12 shows, of the 36 possibly TABLE 12 impacted LIS RESULTS IN ABBYEI LOCALITY IN SOUTHERN KORDOFAN STATE communities 34 were found not POC Identified POC Identified Communities UXO Spot DAs in DAs to be impacted Communities Communities Determined Not Clearance UNMAO Confirmed Suspected Not Suspected Mine Impacted Communities Tasks Database for No Longer in and two Mine Impacted Mine Impacted During LIS Visit Not Located Identified Retrofit Existence communities 66 36 34 2 3 11 11 could not be found. As a result the LIS did not find any mine impacted communities in Abbyei. As shown in Map 8, the LIS recorded three UXO spot clearance tasks (note that two of the three are in close proximity of each other). In addition, 11 Dangerous Areas (DAs) in Abbyei from the UNMAO database were investigated and were confirmed by informants as no longer in existence.

MAP 8

SUSPECTED HAZARDOUS AREA IN ABBYEI LOCALITY IN SOUTHERN KORDOFAN

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 31

CASUALTIES

The Survey Working Group protocols for the Landmine Impact Survey (LIS) define a “recent victim” as a person injured or killed by a mine or UXO incident in the 24 months prior to the community survey. The LIS identified 104 casualties fitting these criteria, of whom 37 were killed and 67 injured.

Table 13 through 17 present a profile of the 104 casualties identified by the LIS. As is commonly seen in mine-affected countries, the vast majority of casualties are men and boys. In Sudan 83% of the casualties were male while 17% were female.

Almost 60% of the casualties were between 15-44 years of age but 28 boys and girls from 0-14 years old were involved in mine incidents. Of the 28, 21 were boys and 7 were girls. The livelihood activities of herding and collecting food and water as well as travelling comprised 60% of the activities at the time of the incident.

Not surprisingly considering the poor infrastructure in rural Sudan, 56% of the casualties did not receive immediate emergency care. However, no survivors reported have received or participated in physical rehabilitation or vocational training including the 24 survivors with amputations.

TABLE 13 TABLE 14

RECENT VICTIMS, BY INJURY AND GENDER VICTIM’S ACTIVITY AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT

Incident Male Female Total Activity at the Time Total Male Female Percentage Injured 54 13 67 Herding 27 23 4 26% Fatality 32 5 37 Collecting food 18 12 6 17% Total 86 18 104 Traveling 17 13 4 16% Fatality Rate 37% 28% 36% Unknown 15 15 0 14% Farming 12 11 1 12%

TABLE 15 Playing 7 5 2 7%

RECENT VICTIMS, BY AGE AND GENDER Tampering 4 4 0 4% Other 3 2 1 3% Age Male Female Total Household Work 1 1 0 1% 0 - 4 2 0 2 Total 104 86 18 100% 5 - 14 19 7 26 15 - 29 23 6 29 30 - 44 31 2 33 TABLE 16 45 - 59 7 3 10 VICTIM’S POST-INCIDENT MEDICAL TREATMENT AND OTHER CARE 60 and above 2 0 2 Unknown 2 0 2 Care Male Female Total Percentage Total 86 18 104 None 50 8 58 56% Emergency 28 7 35 34%

TABLE 17 Unknown 5 1 6 6% Fatal 2 2 4 3% RECENT VICTIMS, BY TYPE OF INJURY AND GENDER Other 1 0 1 1% Wound Male Female Total Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0% Other Injury 30 9 39 Vocational 0 0 0 0% Fatal 32 5 37 Total 86 18 104 100% Amputation 20 4 24 Loss of Sight 4 0 4 Total 86 18 104

32 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

SUSPECTED HAZARD AREAS (SHAS) TABLE 18 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES AND SHAS, BY STATE The Survey Working Group protocols that guide the LIS SHAs Impacted Communities Survey State Number Percentage Number Percentage process characterize all areas Central Equatoria 214 35% 77 26% known or thought to have Southern Kordofan 98 16% 48 16% landmines or landmines and UXO Eastern Equatoria 83 14% 43 15% combined as Suspected Hazard Blue Nile 61 10% 33 11% Areas. The LIS identified 605 Kassala 56 9% 28 9% Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs) Western Equatoria 30 5% 16 5% in 296 mine impacted Jonglei 21 3% 17 6% communities. As shown in Table Upper Nile 12 2% 11 4% 18 and Map 9 the geographic Western Bahr El Ghazal 10 2% 9 3% distribution of the SHAs mirrors Northern Bahr El Ghazal 7 1% 5 2% the distribution of impacted Gadaref 4 1% 3 1% communities. Half of the SHAs Warrab 4 1% 3 1% are located in Central Equatoria Red Sea 2 0% 1 0% and Southern Kordofan while Unity 2 0% 1 0% eight of the 15 impacted states Lakes 1 0% 1 0% have 12 or fewer SHAs and three Sennar 0 0% 0 0% states have only one or two SHAs. Total 605 100% 296 100%

As shown in Table 19, the LIS survey teams estimated a total area of the 605 SHAs as 106 km2. Almost 90 km2 are located in the four states of Central Equatoria, Kassala, Eastern Equatoria and Southern Kordofan. The average size of an SHA is 176,770 m2. There are two anomalies TABLE 19 regarding the size of the SHAs. ESTIMATED SIZE OF SHAS, BY STATE In Kassala the SHAs are Estimated Number Average significantly larger than in the State SHA Size (m2) of SHAs SHA Size (m2) other states which may be due to Central Equatoria 27,122,253 214 126,739 the flat desert terrain and the Kassala 26,816,675 56 478,869 inherent difficulty in referencing Eastern Equatoria 20,444,185 83 246,315 the outer extent of a SHA when Southern Kordofan 15,882,375 98 162,065 there are few landmarks. It is Blue Nile 5,540,064 61 90,821 expected that follow on technical Western Equatoria 5,534,278 30 184,476 surveys may reduce the area Jonglei 3,622,270 21 172,489 extent of many SHAs, especially Upper Nile 571,264 12 47,605 in Kassala, although technical Gadaref 550,000 4 137,500 surveys by MAG have increased Northern Bahr El Ghazal 391,700 7 55,957 the SHA size in Kassala in some Western Bahr El Ghazal 302,200 10 30,220 cases. In Unity state, two SHAs Warrab 129,104 4 32,276 measure only 16 m2 and they are Lakes 21,000 1 21,000 blocking housing. Further Red Sea 18,400 2 9,200 survey may find these SHAs to be Unity 16 2 8 UXO spot clearance tasks. Sennar 0 0 0 Total 106,945,783 605 176,770

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 33

MAP 9 Table 20 shows

SUSPECTED HAZARD AREAS (SHAS) AND UXO SPOT CLEARANCE LOCATIONS that 85% of the contaminated area is located in Central Equatoria, Kassala, Eastern Equatoria, and Southern Kordofan: a similar pattern on the location of primary impact indicators found throughout the survey results. Interestingly, the contaminated area is almost evenly distributed among High, Medium and Low impact communities even though there are almost twice as many Low impacted communities as High and Medium ones. Since none of the 186 Low impacted communities recorded a casualty it could be said that perhaps one of the reasons no casualties were reported may be because the boundaries of the SHAs are well defined and well known, greatly reducing the threat in those communities. In Kassala, in contrast, where 32 recent victims were recorded in the 24 months prior to the survey, the SHA boundaries are not well defined potentially because they are located in flat desert areas where there are few landmarks. Also for these reasons, Kassala has almost as much contaminated area as Central Equatoria even though Central Equatoria has four times as many SHAs.

Table 21 shows the number of SHAs in a community range from one to 11, with 155, or 52%, of the 296 impacted communities reporting just one SHA. Of these communities with only one SHA, 124 are in low impacted communities. Two communities have 10 or more SHAs, an extraordinary number for one community. Oddly, the single community in Morobo County with 11 SHAs did not report any casualties over the 24-month period prior to the survey. Overall communities fall into the high impact category without regard to the number of SHAs.

Tables 22 and 23 show the number of communities and their associated SHAs with recent victims, respectively. Of the 605 SHAs found in the 15 mine impacted states, the LIS found 58 SHAs, or 10%, had recent incidents (in the 24-month period prior to the survey). These 58 SHAs with recent victims are

34 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

distributed among 44 impacted communities in nine states. Eighty percent of the communities with recent victims are three states (Central Equatoria, Eastern Equatoria, and Kassala). No recent victims were reported in seven of the surveyed states.

TABLE 20

SHA SIZE, BY STATE AND COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL

Estimated SHA Area (m2), by Community Impact Level Surveyed State High Medium Low Total Central Equatoria 6,362,102 13,649,733 7,110,418 27,122,253 Kassala 13,242,500 7,387,675 6,186,500 26,816,675 Eastern Equatoria 9,287,050 8,732,650 2,424,485 20,444,185 Southern Kordofan 1,337,270 6,557,154 7,987,951 15,882,375 Blue Nile 1,623,600 777,000 3,139,464 5,540,064 Western Equatoria 0 605,678 4,928,600 5,534,278 Jonglei 0 473,120 3,149,150 3,622,270 Upper Nile 0 500,000 71,264 571,264 Gadaref 0 460,000 90,000 550,000 Northern Bahr El Ghazal 0 0 391,700 391,700 Western Bahr El Ghazal 0 180,000 122,200 302,200 Warrab 0 76,204 52,900 129,104 Lakes 0 0 21,000 21,000 Red Sea 0 0 18,400 18,400 Unity 0 0 16 16 Sennar 0 0 0 0 Total 31,852,522 39,399,214 35,694,047 106,945,783

TABLE 21

SHAS PER IMPACTED COMMUNITY, BY IMPACT LEVEL

Number of SHAs Number of Communities, by Impact Level Percentage of Per Community High Medium Low Subtotal all SHAs 1 6 25 124 155 52% 2 6 16 39 61 21% 3 4 21 13 38 13% 4 5 9 4 18 6% 5 1 8 4 13 4.3% 6 1 4 2 7 2.4% 7 1 1 0 2 0.7% 8 0 0 0 0 0% 9 0 0 0 0 0% 10 1 0 0 1 0.3% 11 0 1 0 1 0.3%

Total 25 85 186 296 100%

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 35

TABLE 22

COMMUNITIES WITH RECENT VICTIMS

Communities with Recent Victims Recent Victims

Surveyed State Number Percentage Number Percentage Eastern Equatoria 13 30% 28 27% Kassala 12 27% 32 31% Central Equatoria 10 23% 20 19% Blue Nile 3 7% 10 10% Southern Kordofan 2 5% 7 7% Jonglei 1 2% 2 2% Lakes 1 2% 2 2% Warrab 1 2% 1 1% Western Bahr El Ghazal 1 2% 2 2% Gadaref 0 0% 0 0% Northern Bahr El Ghazal 0 0% 0 0% Red Sea 0 0% 0 0% Sennar 0 0% 0 0% Unity 0 0% 0 0% Upper Nile 0 0% 0 0% Western Equatoria 0 0% 0 0% Total 44 100% 104 100%

TABLE 23

SHAS WITH VICTIMS, BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL

Community SHAs with Recent Estimated Impact Category Recent Victims Victims Area (m2) High 35 74 42 Medium 23 30 8 Low 0 0 0 Total 58 104 50

36 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Map 10 indicates the location of SHAs with recent victims. The location of recent victims is highly significant. A SAC study in Afghanistan7 has demonstrated that the presence of recent victims is the single best indication of future victims. The communities that have been identified with high victim rates should receive priority attention in terms of Risk Education and Land Release.

MAP 10

SUSPECTED HAZARD AREAS WITH RECENT VICTIMS

The LIS results indicate that 62% percent of impacted communities (and 48% of SHAs) are contaminated with a mixture of ordnance type, as reflected in Table 24. The number of SHAs reported to have anti-personnel (AP) mines is 465 and the number reported to have anti-tank (AT) mines is 302. SHAs with AP mines constitute 77% of the contaminated area.

7 NGO, Dang with Lawrence H. Moulton Ph.D., Peter Harvey, and Robert Eaton; Victim Reduction Model - Final Report; Survey Action Center, www.sac-na.org/resources_publications.html, 30 June 2008.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 37

TABLE 24 UXO SPOT CLEARANCE TASKS IMPACTED COMMUNITIES AND SHAS, BY ORDNANCE TYPE Decades of conflict have littered Sudan Number of Number Percent of with unexploded ordnance (UXO). The Ordnance Type Communities of SHAs Estimated Area LIS identified 423 UXO spot clearance AP & AT 95 164 30% tasks. This compares to 605 suspected AP & UXO 22 48 4% hazard areas. In August 2009 UNMAO Mixed AP, AT, UXO 58 58 19% reported 885,770 UXO had been found AT & UXO 10 20 9% since 2002 when the UN mine action Sub-Total 185 290 61% program began. AP Only 55 195 26% AT Only 54 118 13% Eastern Equatoria, Central Unmixed UXO Only 2 2 0% Equatoria and Blue Nile account for Sub-Total 111 315 39% 224, or 53%, of the 423 spot clearance Total 296 605 100% tasks. Eastern Equatoria also has more UXO spot clearance sites than any other state and Central Equatoria, Southern Kordofan and Kassala have substantially more SHAs than UXO spot clearance tasks. As shown in Table 25, each of five states have fewer than ten UXO spot clearance tasks and no UXO spot clearance tasks were found in Sennar, which is also free of landmines.

At the end of each of the eight phases of the LIS, UNMAO quality assured the data collected and entered it into the national database where it serves as a basis for setting priorities and as a baseline for measuring progress. The LIS identified 605 SHAs in 15 states. Soon after the Eastern Equatoria was surveyed in August 2006, UNMAO began a process to physically monitor the status of all SHAs identified by the LIS. Table 26 shows that as of November 2009 UNMAO had tasked visits to 243 SHAs (2 were cleared, 23 were cancelled and 218, or 90%, were determined to be either a UXO spot task clearance or UXO SPOT IN TWIC EAST LOCALITY, JONGLEI (2009) a minefield).

Table 26 also indicates both the priorities of the mine action program in Sudan as well as the significant progress in reducing the threat. Since the LIS, 243 SHAs, or 40% have been worked on by technical survey or clearance in nine states while no tasking has occurred in six states as of November 2009. The initial follow-up by UNMAO has been focused on the Eastern Equatoria, Central Equatoria, Southern Kordofan, and Blue Nile states.

38 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

TABLE 25

UXO SPOT CLEARANCE TASKS, BY STATE

Number of UXO Spot State Clearance Tasks Number of SHAs Eastern Equatoria 97 83 Central Equatoria 83 214 Blue Nile 44 61 Jonglei 35 21 Western Equatoria 32 30 Warrab 28 4 Southern Kordofan 27 98 Northern Bahr El Ghazal 21 7 Kassala 18 56 Western Bahr El Ghazal 14 10 Lakes 9 1 Unity 6 2 Upper Nile 5 12 Red Sea 3 2 Gadaref 1 4 Sennar 0 0 Total 423 605

TABLE 26

UPDATE FROM UNMAO ON SHAS AS AT NOVEMBER 2009

SHAs Awaiting Action Tasked by UNMAO Surveyed State Action Technical Survey Cleared Cancelled Total Central Equatoria 133 81 0 0 214 Southern Kordofan 71 27 0 0 98 Kassala 48 5 1 2 56 Blue Nile 32 27 0 2 61 Jonglei 21 0 0 0 21 Western Equatoria 17 13 0 0 30 Upper Nile 12 0 0 0 12 Eastern Equatoria 7 57 1 18 83 Northern Bahr El Ghazal 5 1 0 1 7 Western Bahr El Ghazal 5 5 0 0 10 Gadaref 4 0 0 0 4 Red Sea 2 0 0 0 2 Unity 2 0 0 0 2 Warrab 2 2 0 0 4 Lakes 1 0 0 0 1 Total 362 218 2 23 605

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 39

40 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Analysis of Economic Blockage Impacts

andmines and UXO affect communities in a variety of ways. A scoring system is used to classify L communities as high, medium or low impact, using a protocol common to all Landmine Impact Surveys. Setting mine action tasking priorities and the use of donor funds requires a more complex set of criteria. Some factors that could be considered in setting priorities are refugee returns, victim rates, proximity of the SHA to the community, the importance of blockages to development and livelihoods, and whether alternatives to the blockages are available and in fact are being used.

As part of the impact scoring system, the LIS records the different ways in which landmine/UXO contamination in each SHA blocks people’s access to the following ten types of resources. Each SHA may be reported to block access to one or more of these resources.

1. Irrigated cropland 2. Rain-fed cropland 3. Fixed Pasture (used year round) 4. Migratory Pasture (used seasonally) 5. Drinking water (for human consumption) 6. Water for other uses (irrigation, bathing, laundry, fishing, animals, other) 7. Housing 8. Roads and paths 9. Other infrastructure (school, bridge, power line, factory, market, oil field, etc) 10. Non-agricultural land (foraging for food, fuel, shelter, medicinal plants, etc)

Table 27 shows that more than twice as many communities said mines were blocking rain-fed cropland, roads and housing than the other TABLE 27 seven blockages. The COMMUNITIES REPORTING BLOCKED ACCESS TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES data indicates that pasture, non- Impacted Communities Suspected Hazard Areas Type of Blocked Resource Number Percent Population Number Percent Est. Area (km2) agricultural land, and Rain-fed Cropland 161 54% 1,080,206 299 49% 46.8 water were fairly Roads and Paths 153 52% 530,575 200 33% 29.6 equally reported while Housing 144 49% 1,379,478 266 44% 52.2 mines blocked access Fixed Pasture 71 24% 724,654 104 17% 26.3 to only a few irrigated Non Agricultural Land 65 22% 254,184 105 17% 25.2 cropland and other Migratory Pasture 52 18% 215,885 97 16% 26.1 infrastructure Drinking Water 43 15% 174,264 55 9% 14.3 resources. Although Other Water 42 14% 274,208 50 8% 16.7 the survey results Infrastructure 24 8% 262,386 30 5% 5.9 clearly indicate mines Irrigated Cropland 2 1% 5,820 2 0% 0.02 affect some types of Note: Percentages do not add to 100% because SHAs can be reported to block access to more than one resource. blockages more than others the geographical distribution of the blockages indicate the diversity of Sudan.

Tables 28 and 29 illustrate how landmines impact each state differently. For example, landmines in the Equatoria region impact housing more than in other areas. Impacted communities in Blue Nile reported roads as a blockage more than other states. Roads in Jonglei state were reported more often

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 41

TABLE 28 as a blockage than other BLOCKED ACCESS TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES, BY IMPACT CATEGORY types. Roads were reported as a blockage in low Total Number High- and Medium-Impact Low-Impact of Blockages Communities Reporting Communities Reporting impacted communities more Type of Blocked Resource Reported this Blockage Type this Blockage Type than in high and medium Rain-fed Cropland 299 68% 32% ones. Water as a blockage Housing 266 67% 33% was reported in 82% of the Roads and Paths 200 33% 67% high and medium impacted Non-Agricultural Land 105 77% 23% communities, the highest rate Fixed Pasture 104 72% 28% for any of the ten blockages. Migratory Pasture 97 77% 23% Drinking Water 55 78% 22% Four different types of Non Drinking Water 50 82% 18% blockages are the leading Infrastructure 30 77% 23% blockage among the states. Irrigated Cropland 2 50% 50% Roads are the most cited blockage in six states, rain- fed land in four, and housing and fixed pasture in three. As a result priorities for clearance may be different in each state. Migratory pasture, while not ranked first among blockages, was ranked high in Eastern Equatoria and Southern Kordofan.

TABLE 29

BLOCKED ACCESS TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES, BY STATE

SHAs Blocking Access to Socio-Economic Resources Roads Non- Total Rain-fed & Agricultural Fixed Migratory Drinking Non Drinking Other Irrigated Surveyed State SHAs Cropland Housing Paths Land Pasture Pasture Water Water Infrastructure Cropland Central Equatoria 214 136 116 37 12 24 6 12 23 18 1 Southern Kordofan 98 38 48 30 12 2 37 12 1 1 0 Eastern Equatoria 83 65 47 29 56 30 28 20 20 5 0 Blue Nile 61 14 9 43 8 11 0 6 2 0 0 Kassala 56 8 6 23 8 25 20 4 3 0 0 Western Equatoria 30 12 19 4 4 1 0 1 1 3 0 Jonglei 21 12 10 16 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 Upper Nile 12 7 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 Western Bahr El Ghazal 10 2 2 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Northern Bahr El Ghazal 7 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 Warrab 4 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Gadaref 4 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Red Sea 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Unity 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lakes 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sennar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 605 299 266 200 105 104 97 55 50 30 2

42 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Retrofit Results

he Landmine Impact Survey in Sudan consisted of two distinct activities rolled into one process. The T primary activity was collecting data that measures impact to the norms and procedures set forth in the survey protocols as approved by the Survey Working Group. During the planning stage of the LIS SAC recommended to the United Nations Mine Action Office (UNMAO) that, in addition to identifying impacted communities and suspected hazard areas, the survey should also verify dangerous areas in the UNMAO database. This process, called a “retrofit” meant that every Dangerous Area (DA) already in the database at the time a state survey began would be verified on the ground by the field teams. Due to the size of Sudan, the planned coverage of the survey and the lack of certainty on what comprised a dangerous areas, it was believed that the LIS presented a timely opportunity to assist UNMAO in updating its database and possibly discounting DAs that no longer existed. Map 11 indicates the location of the DAs in the UNMAO database at the time of the survey in each state.

Prior to the commencement of the retrofit it was believed that a DA would either be confirmed to exist or found no longer in existence. The survey found, however, that the DAs in the UNMAO database took on many forms and they are summarized in the six categories listed in Table 30. The retrofit found that 78% of the 1,186 DAs were either SHAs, UXO spot clearance, or no longer a DA. The LIS survey

TABLE 30

RESULTS OF RETROFIT OF UNMAO DANGEROUS AREAS

DAs that DAs DAs in the DAs Found Matched Matching DAs Not DAs with UNMAO Did Not with LIS UXO Spot Linked to a DAs Not No GPS Surveyed State Database Exist SHAs Clearance Community Accessible Coordinates Central Equatoria 330 65 175 28 38 17 7 Southern Kordofan 197 123 39 7 6 22 0 Western Bahr el Ghazal 133 64 12 12 0 44 1 Warrab 92 33 12 35 5 6 1 Western Equatoria 91 24 23 23 6 15 0 Eastern Equatoria 79 25 22 14 13 0 5 Jonglei 66 24 11 3 7 19 2 Blue Nile 51 10 17 6 17 0 1 Red Sea 41 41 0 0 0 0 0 Lakes 37 12 0 13 6 6 0 Kassala 36 12 8 2 3 11 0 Northern Bahr El Ghazal 28 20 4 0 2 1 1 Unity 5 3 0 0 0 2 0 Upper Nile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gadaref 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sennar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1,186 456 323 143 103 143 18 Percentage 100% 38% 27% 12% 9% 12% 2%

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 43

MAP 11

DANGEROUS AREAS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED IN THE UNMAO DATABASE

teams confirmed 323 as suspected hazard areas, 143 as UXO spot clearance tasks and 456 were confirmed as no longer existing because they had been cleared, either officially or unofficially. In each case when the DA was cancelled the local community leaders considered the DA not to contain mines. The other 22% were not accessible at the time of the survey (143); had no coordinates (18); or were not linked to any community (103).

The survey was conducted in eight phases over a three year period based on the availability of funding and geographic locations. After each phase, UNMAO continued to receive reports on new DAs. Although the LIS confirmed the status of 1,262 DAs in 13 states, as of August 2009 UNMAO still had 1,543 DAs in its database.8

8 August 2009 IMSMA report, www.sudan-map.org

44 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Past Mine Action

n September 19, 2002, the Government of Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement O (SPLM), and the United Nations signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding UN mine action support to Sudan. The UN planned to reduce risk while developing a national mine action strategy. In the absence of a peace agreement mine action, with a handful of international and national operators, was limited to the Nuba Mountain region in the current state of Southern Kordofan where international observers were monitoring a ceasefire agreement and in the area near Rumbek, the former capital of South Sudan, in the present state of Lakes. The focus of clearance operations was the clearing of roads to facilitate access for humanitarian aid. Small, mobile teams were tasked to clear UXO. UNICEF hired a consultant to develop an MRE program and ICRC supported a rehabilitation workshop in Khartoum for amputees, although the majority of the patients were suffering from diabetes.

When the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in January 2005 mine action activities were able to expand over time. In 2008 Sudan Mine Action was a $39 million program.9 The program grew substantially in 2009, although the final figures were not available at the time of this report. UNMAO coordinates, facilitates, and overseas all mine action activities in Sudan.

The LIS collected information on past mine action as part of the survey during community visits. Table 31 indicates the general distribution of mine action activities.

These findings are not a description or reflection TABLE 31 of the full mine action IMPACTED COMMUNITIES REPORTING PRIOR MINE ACTION, BY IMPACT LEVEL program Sudan. Instead Communities, by Impact Level All Percent the information serves as an Mine Action Activity High Medium Low Communities (re 296) indicator of mine action on Mine Risk Education 10 44 96 150 51% reducing risk and past Survey 9 28 47 84 28% priorities as reported by Official Clearance 9 24 44 77 26% the impacted communities. Local Clearance Efforts 2 6 3 11 4% Table 31 shows that mine risk education (MRE) was the most reported activity in impacted communities as 150 of the 296 impacted communities reported MRE including 54 of the 110 High and Medium impacted communities. While it is difficult to attribute MRE directly to a change in behavior or fewer incidents it should be noted that the LIS did not identify one victim in a Low Impact community, where MRE was chiefly targeted.

As shown in Table 32, mine risk education was reported in 12 of the 16 surveyed states with 51% of all impacted communities reporting MRE. Central Equatoria and Southern Kordofan, where mine action activity has been primarily focused, reported more MRE than other states. Southern Kordofan reported the most coverage with 81% of the impacted communities reporting MRE had occurred. In Kassala and Eastern Equatoria, two of the more impacted states in Sudan, less than 40% of the impacted communities reported MRE.

The impact of mine clearance in 77 impacted communities is more complex to interpret than with MRE intervention. If these 77 communities are still impacted by landmines then the clearance reported was only partial. This may be explained by the fact that road clearance was the first priority and some

9 See Landmine Monitor 2009.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 45

communities have SHAs that were cleared as part of a road clearance project. Further, there were 33 communities in the high and medium impact category that received some mine clearance while still having SHAs and victims after the clearance effort was discontinued.

TABLE 32

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES REPORTING PRIOR MRE, BY STATE AND IMPACT LEVEL

Communities Reporting MRE, by Impact Level Total Impacted Percent Reporting Surveyed State High Medium Low Total Communities in State MRE in State Central Equatoria 3 16 28 47 77 61% Southern Kordofan 2 8 29 39 48 81% Blue Nile 2 0 16 18 33 55% Eastern Equatoria 2 10 1 13 43 30% Western Equatoria 0 3 7 10 16 63% Kassala 1 3 6 10 28 36% Upper Nile 0 1 3 4 11 36% Western Bahr El Ghazal 0 2 1 3 9 33% Jonglei 0 1 2 3 17 18% Northern Bahr El Ghazal 0 0 1 1 5 20% Red Sea 0 0 1 1 1 100% Warrab 0 0 1 1 3 33% Unity 0 0 0 0 1 0% Lakes 0 0 0 0 1 0% Gadaref 0 0 0 0 3 0% Sennar 0 0 0 0 0 0% Total 10 44 96 150 296 51%

Eleven impacted communities reported some landmine clearance at a local and unofficial level. These efforts included clearance by the SPLA or Sudanese Armed Forces following a request from the community to clear a visible mine. For example, in Kassala, one community reported the army cleared a road. Few community members claimed they did local demining themselves but it was generally difficult to measure exactly what concrete action they performed considered all 11 communities reporting local efforts are still mined. Local demining occurred in seven of the 15 impacted states (Central Equatoria, Eastern Equatoria, Jonglei, Kassala, Southern Kordofan, Warrab and Western Equatoria).

Map 12 shows the location of all the impacted communities and indicates which ones report mine risk education within the two years prior to the survey.

46 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

MAP 12

COMMUNITIES REPORTING MINE RISK EDUCATION (MRE)

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 47

48 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Profiles by State

Blue Nile

51 3 4 3 19 29 Low Impact Impact

0 2 1 0 1 Impact Impact Medium Medium 0 1 0 1 2 High Impact Impact TABLE 33 TABLE 3 21 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

residents at the time of the survey were residents at the time of the survey were nese government and the SPLM, in which nese government and the SPLM, in which COMMUNITIES, BY LOCALITY AND IMPACT LEVEL IMPACT AND BY LOCALITY COMMUNITIES, ile others are Internally Displaced People ile others are Internally Displaced People occurred within a two-year period prior occurred within a two-year period and borders Ethiopia to the east. The capital is and borders Ethiopia to the east. The planning to return to 31 of the 33 mine-impacted planning to return to 31 of the 33 mine-impacted ned to mine impacted communities. e tasks in 27 communities. Mines Advisory Group Advisory Mines e tasks in 27 communities. UXO spot clearance tasks, and 10 were found to UXO spot clearance an 80% are from Baw and Kurmuk localities. The an 80% are from Baw and Kurmuk localities. Baw 5 Geissan 4 Roseires Al Total 33 Locality Total Kurmuk Al lity. The population in the impacted communities lity. The population ated with the impacted communities are 61 SHAs. ated with the impacted es in Blue Nile state. Of the 33 impacted es in Blue Nile state. d September 2006 - February 2007 and identified 33 mine- d September 2006 ng the survey in this state. ng the survey in this LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – ho eventually return may be different. ho eventually return may be different.

It is not known how many retur 10 Due to the long conflict between the Suda

the state was a major battleground, many former wh still living in refugee camps in Ethiopia Al-Damazin, which is 550 kilometers from Khartoum by paved road. Blue Nile state is Al-Damazin, which is 550 kilometers from divided into five localities with 523 communities. is located in the southeastern part of the Sudan is located in the southeastern part of the he UNMAO database and found that 17 matched Dangerous Areas (DAs) from the UNMAO database The LIS verified 51 to have The LIS identified 10 casualties reported It is estimated that 61,431 refugees and IDPs were It is estimated that 61,431 refugees and UNMIS, “Sudan IDP and Refugee Returns, Reintegration Operations Statistical Overview”, July 2009, p. 8.

10 (IDPs). In 2007, UNHCRthe return of almost 45,000 refugees and IDPs. As of June 2009, an anticipated estimated 24,000 refugees and IDPS had returned to Nile state. This number does not include Blue spontaneous returns. Impact on Communities Communities Impact on Table 33 shows that four of the five localities in Blue Nile are impacted by landmines. Of the 523 communities in the state, the LIS survey was conducted in 148 communities and found that only 33 are impacted by landmines. Of the 33 impacted communities, two were high impacted, two medium and 29 low impact. SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Blue Nile impacted communities or 6.3% of the 523 communiti impacted communities are located in Al Kurmuk Loca communities, 21 (63%) partner for SAC duri was the implementing The LIS survey of the Blue Nile was conducte The LIS survey of the of 237 per community. Associ is 7,826, or an average identified 44 UXO spot clearanc The survey teams also (SHAs), six were identified as Suspected Hazard Areas no longer exist. Blue Nile Blue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY to the survey. return, more th communities. Of the 61,431 who might actual number of IDPs and refugees w

MAP 13 Prior to the LIS, the IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN BLUE NILE STATE UNMAO threat map showed that every county in Blue Nile state suffered from a risk to landmines and or UXO. Map 13 shows that only three of the five counties are impacted and that Kurmuk Locality contains almost two-thirds of the impacted communities in the state as well as almost three-quarters of the 7,326 inhabitants living in the impacted communities. The average population of an impacted community is 237 people. Furthermore, all of the high and medium impacted communities are in Baw and Kurmuk localities. No impacted communities were found in Damazin Locality.

Table 34 shows an estimated 61,431 returnees are expected in four of the five counties, of which two- thirds are from Al Kurmuk which is the most heavily

Note: A community appearing outside of the state boundary is due impacted county in Blue Nile to the inaccuracy of the boundary information used to produce this map. with 21 impacted

communities and 38 SHAs. In addition, there are 21 locations for UXO spot TABLE 34 clearance in Kurmuk. EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES, BY LOCALITY Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs) Expected Number Impacted Locality of IDPs Communities SHAs Figure 1 shows that the LIS Al Kurmuk 41,669 21 38 identified 61 SHAs, with an Baw 8,020 5 11 estimated combined area Geissan 6,170 4 8 reaching 5.5 km2, in 33 El Roseries 5,572 3 4 Ed Damazin 0 0 0 impacted communities. Total 61,431 33 61

52 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Blue Nile

6% 9% 6% 21% 58%

100% of Total 53 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 50% 30% 10% 20% 30% 50% Percentage 100% Percentage

0 1 5 3 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 5 10 10

0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TABLE 35 TABLE Total Percentage Total Female Communities Number of Such Number

0 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 PER COMMUNITY, BY FREQUENCY PER COMMUNITY, BY FREQUENCY

S Male the casualties survived. the casualties survived. Total Killed Total Injured SHA 5 2 2 7 3 2 4 3 1 19 le, suffered amputations as a result le, suffered amputations SHAs Per SHAs Community REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

Total 33 5 to 14 Total 8 4 Amputation Unknown Wound Wound Total 8 0 to 5 Recent Victims, by Age Type of Wound, by Gender Unknown 1 Age Other Wound Wound Other Fatality 2 Sight Loss of 60 and over 15 to 29 45 to 59 30 to 44

es have one SHA. Five communities have at SHA. Five communities es have one od prior to a community survey. Table 36 shows od prior to a community

TABLE 36 TABLE male. Eighty percent of male. Eighty percent g wood or water was the most commonly reported g wood or water was

2 6 8 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 40% 10% 10% 20% 10% 100% PROFILE OF CASUALTIES Civilian Percentage

Low Impact 3,139,464 sq m 57% 1 4 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – 10 Total Est. Area 5,540,064 sq m Total

. Four survivors, including one fema one . Four survivors, including 0 2 0 8 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 Female , BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL , BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL S 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 FIGURE 1 Military Military Survived Killed

ESTIMATED SIZE OF SHA Table 35 shows that 19 of the 33 impacted communiti that 19 of the Table 35 shows Gender Office Work Trading 0 Other Total 8 Farming 1 Housework 1 Playing 1 Unknown 1 Herding Total 2 Activity at theActivity Male Time of the Collecting Food / Water Incident, by Military Activity Gender Recent Victims, by Gender Female 0 Male 2 ,623,600 sq m 29% High Impact Medium Impact 777,000 sq m 14%

1 least four SHAs. least four The LIS identified 10 casualties within the 24-month peri The LIS identified 10 Recent Victims Recent Victims of the recent casualties were that 8 of the 10, or 80%, One survivor was between 5-14 years old. Collectin One survivor was between of the incident activity at the time of the incident.

FIGURE 2 Analysis of Economic Impacts SHAS BLOCKING RESOURCES, WITH AND WITHOUT SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES Figure 2 shows that almost 80%

SHAs Reported to Have Alternatives to Blockage of the impacted communities Resource Blocked SHAs Reported to Block Access to Resources reported that roads are the 9 Roads 43 primary socio-economic 5 Rain-fed Cropland 14 blockage. All of the other 7 Fixed Pasture 11 blockages are relatively evenly 2 Housing 9 distributed with rain-fed 4 Non-Agricultural Land 8 cropland and pasture ranked 0 Drinking Water 6 slightly higher than housing 0 Non-Drinking Water 2 and non-agricultural land. 0 Irrigated Cropland 0 The figure, however, also 0 Migratory Pasture 0 shows that of the 93 blockages 0 Other Infrastructure 0 reported 27 (or 29 %) have a 0102030 40 50 Number of SHAs with Reports of Blockage sufficient alternative with 9 of the 43 blockages for roads reporting an alternative to the mined road. Blocked pastureland also has significant alternatives. There are few or no alternatives, however, to blocked water sources.

Past Mine Action TABLE 37

COMMUNITIES REPORTING PAST MINE ACTION, BY ACTIVITY TYPE Prior to the survey, little mine action had occurred as only five Communities Reporting Percentage of the Mine Action Activity Such Activity in the Past 33 Impacted Communities of the communities reported Mine Risk Education 18 55% clearance. Table 37 shows that Marking or Fencing 10 30% 55% of the impacted Technical Survey 5 15% communities reported that Clearance 5 15% some MRE had taken place. Local Clearance Efforts 1 3%

Retrofit Results TABLE 38 The retrofit of 51 dangerous RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE areas in the IMSMA database Dangerous indicates that the LIS was able Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Areas Percentage to identify 17 of the DAs as Found to match an LIS SHAs 17 33% being a SHA, while another 17 Found not linked to an LIS community 17 33% were not linked to a community Found not to exist or to have been cleared 10 20% and 10 did not exist or had Found to match an LIS UXO Spot Clearance site 6 12% been cleared by official or local Not located due to missing GPS coordinates 1 2% efforts. As Table 38 shows, Not visited due to inaccessibility 0 0% another six were identified as Total Dangerous Area database records in state 51 100% UXO spot clearance tasks.

54 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Blue Nile

Field

Opinion Collection Survey Findings Preliminary

1 43 0 44

Affected 414 Not Suspected Inaccessible Inaccessible True Negatives True False Negatives False Selected for FNS Selected for

REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

FIGURE 3 33 SURVEY COVERAGE

Impacted

Communities 523 Total Communities Total negatives (FNS) is a standard quality assurance negatives (FNS) is a standard quality assurance mately, 33 impacted communities were identified. mately, 33 impacted communities were one visit uncovered an impacted community while the one visit uncovered an impacted community 5

32 72 LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – 109 True Positives True False Positives False Suspected Affected Abandoned, Impacted

The survey teams Table 39, on the next page, lists all the impacted communities in the Blue Nile state. communities in the Blue Nile impacted Table 39, on the next page, lists all the process discussed in Annex XI. Of these 44 visits, process discussed in Annex XI. Of these impacted. Ulti other 43 communities were found not Survey Coverage Survey Coverage that the Figure 3 shows Opinion Preliminary (POC) Collection identified 109 communities in Blue Nile as suspected to be mine-affected out of the 523 communities in the state. attempted to visit these 109 communities but five were either inaccessible or had been abandoned. Another 44 communities were sampled from the POC list of 414 communities not suspected of for false having a landmine problem. This sampling

TABLE 39

LIST OF 33 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN BLUE NILE STATE

Locality Community Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims 1 Al Kurmuk Abego 4 1 0 2 Abu Nezir 5 3 0 3 Bel Mayo 4 1 0 4 Chali 3 4 0 5 Dem Mansour 3 1 0 6 El Bilka Dilaliya 3 2 0 7 El Shimi 4 1 0 8 Guffa 4 2 0 9 Jabarona 4 1 0 10 Jebel Halla 10 5 2 11 Jorot Gerb 4 1 0 12 Jorot Sherg 3 1 0 13 Keili Aboni 3 1 0 14 Khor Hassan 5 1 0 15 Kurmuk 20 4 6 16 Muguf 3 2 0 17 Oss 4 1 0 18 Sally 3 2 0 19 Tornasi 3 1 0 20 Ura 3 1 0 21 Wad Dalkajuk 3 2 0 22 Al Roseires Abu Mukhalif 3 1 0 23 Abu Shiendi el Azaza 3 1 0 24 Menza 5 2 0 25 Baw Baldugu El Birka 3 2 0 26 El Silak 4 1 0 27 Madah 3 1 0 28 Malkan 10 3 0 29 Ullu 13 4 2 30 Geissan Agaro 3 1 0 31 Bakowry 3 1 0 32 Goja 4 5 0 33 Jantal Khaeir 4 1 0 Total n/a 61 10

56 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Central Equatoria

57 5 1 7 4 11 17 45 Low Impact Impact 6 3 3 2 1

13 28 Impact Impact Medium Medium 0 0 3 0 0 1 4 High Impact Impact TABLE 40 TABLE 6 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

impacted communities, suspected impacted communities, mocratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. mocratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. COMMUNITIES, BY COUNTY AND IMPACT LEVEL 214 SHAs. Of the 77 impacted communities, 214 SHAs. Of the 77 he border with Uganda, is another important he border with Uganda, is another important Morobo 11 Terekeka 10 Lainya 7 Keji Kajo Total 77 County Total Juba 30 Yei 13 O spot clearance tasks and 65 no longer exist or O spot clearance tasks and 65 no longer p was the implementing partner for SAC during the p was the implementing erous Areas (DAs) from the UNMAO database and erous Areas (DAs) from the UNMAO database ately 1,051,055 people are reported to be living in ately 1,051,055 people are reported to ll the people in Sudan living in mine impacted ll the people in Sudan living in mine impacted In addition, 46 communities requested UXO spot In addition, 46 communities requested in the UNMAO data, UXO spot clearance tasks and in the UNMAO data, LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – (communities). ring the period August 2007- February 2008 and was found to be the 2007- February 2008 and was found ring the period August by a large margin. It has more by a large margin. bomas

assification in Central or unofficial efforts. , and 229 is the capital of the state. Yei, near t

is located in South Sudan bordering the De is located in South Sudan bordering the Juba town in the state. six counties: Juba, Central Equatoria is sub-divided into Divisions: Administrative Keji. The counties are further divided into 43 Lainya, Morobo, Terekeka, Yei, and Kajo payams The LIS identified 77 mine impacted communities with The LIS identified 77 Additionally, the LIS found that the place of origin for an estimated 247,562 IDPs were in mine Additionally, the LIS found that the place

Impact on Communities Communities Impact on The LIS survey was conducted in 196 communities and categorized the 77 communities actually found to be mine impacted high-impacted, 28 as medium-impacted as four and 45 as low-impacted. Of those 77 impacted communities, 53, or 69%, were located in Juba, Yei and Morobo counties. Table 40 provides a summary of the impact cl Equatoria, while Map 14 depicts the geographical distribution of these communities. SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Central Equatoria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY surveyed du Central Equatoria was state in Sudan most mine-affected state. in this survey Approxim 30, or 56%, are located in Juba County. 60% of a impacted communities, which represent Central Equatoria Equatoria Central states. Central Equatoria has six 14 mine-affected people than any of the other internally displaced Mines Advisory Grou counties and 229 communities. findings. communities according to the survey identified as UX found that 175 matched SHAs, 28 were hazard areas, recent victims, dangerous areas hazard areas, recent 330 Dang clearance in 83 locations. The LIS verified were cleared by official impacted communities.

MAP 14

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN CENTRAL EQUATORIA STATE

The total number of returnees in mine impacted TABLE 41 communities in 15 states in Sudan is an estimated 679,018 EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES, BY COUNTY people, of which, as Table 41 shows, an estimated 247,562, or 36%, are from Central Equatoria. Juba County is expecting Expected Number Impacted County of IDPs Communities SHAs over half of the returnees in the state, with Terekeka, Juba 134,160xx 30 80 Morobo, and Yei counties also expecting a large number of Terekeka 37,700 xx 10 19 returnees. Morobo 28,324 xx 11 43 Yei 24,408 xx 13 36 Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs) Kajo Keji 13,100 xx 6 12 Like the other categories such as recent victims and Lainya 9,870 xx 7 24 Total 247,562 xx 77 214 impacted communities that are used to describe and

58 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Central Equatoria

9% 9% 5% 3% 1% 21% 19% 33% of Total Percentage

Low Impact Low Impact 7,110,418 sq m 7,110,418 26% Total Est. Area 27,122,253 sq m 50 77 100% 136 TABLE 42 TABLE Communities Number of Such Number 116 PER COMMUNITY, BY FREQUENCY S , BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL , BY COMMUNITY S FIGURE 4 SHA 2 16 3 15 4 7 5 7 6 4 7 2 1 25 11 1 SHAs Per SHAs Community Total REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

SHAs Reported to Have Alternatives to Blockage SHAs Reported to Block Access to Resources ESTIMATED SIZE OF SHA 60 90 120 1 WITHOUT SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES Number of SHAs with Reports of Blockage 37 ,362,102 sq m FIGURE 5 High Impact 24% Medium Impact 13,649,733 sq m 50% 24 23 6 30 15 18 12 8 12 LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – 5 5 6 4 are 4 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 was somewhat mitigated by s and 72% reported blockage Roads lt, the community scored just BLOCKING RESOURCES, WITH AND S Housing ative existed and therefore the Resource Blocked SHA Fixed Pasture Fixed , of which 20 km 2 Drinking Water Migratory Pasture Rain-fed Cropland Irrigated Cropland Irrigated Other Infrastructure Non-Drinking Water on-Agricultural Land on-Agricultural N

Figure 4 illustrates that total SHA area is Figure 4 illustrates As indicated in Table 42, 14 As indicated in Table Analysis of Socio-Economic Blockage Impacts communities Figure 5 shows that 70% of the impacted reported blocked housing area of rain-fed agricultural areas, while the least reported of rain-fed agricultural areas, while the of the 419 blockage was irrigated cropland. However, occasions in 64 blockages reported, the community informants stated that a sufficient altern direct impact on the community measure a nationwide landmine problem nationwide landmine measure a number of has the largest Central Equatoria 35% of all 214, which represents SHAs with SHAs in Sudan. km estimated to be 27 of water and pasture. the availability of alternative sources The average in low impact communities. impacted community number of SHAs per is three and 14 in Central Equatoria five or more SHAs. communities have five or more SHAs communities have including Girili community in Morobo County, which recorded 11 SHAs but the two years victims within did not report any remarkably As a resu prior to the survey. impacted. Only eight points and was categorized as medium more SHAs were two of the 14 communities with five or categorized as high impact.

Casualties

Table 43 shows the data collected on victims of mine incidents in Central Equatoria. The LIS identified 20 casualties in Central Equatoria within the 24-month period prior to the survey. Of the 20 victims, 16 were male and four were female and 13 survived the incident. Eight of the 13 survivors are amputees. The majority of casualties were men between 15 and 29 years of age, with 60% of the casualties engaged in farming, military activity, or herding at the time of the incident.

TABLE 43

PROFILE OF CASUALTIES

Recent Victims, by Gender Recent Victims, by Age Gender Killed Survived Military Civilian Age Injured Killed Total Percentage Male 6 10 4 12 15 to 29 7 1 8 40% Female 1 3 0 4 45 to 59 1 4 5 25% Total 7 13 4 16 30 to 44 3 0 3 15% 5 to 14 1 1 2 10% Activity at the Time of the Incident, by Gender 0 to 5 1 0 1 5% Activity Male Female Total Percentage 60 and over 1 0 1 5% Farming 5 2 7 35% Unknown 0 0 0 0% Military Activity 4 0 4 20% Total 14 6 20 100% Other 2 1 3 15% Unknown 2 0 2 10% Type of Wound, by Gender Herding 0 1 1 5% Wound Male Female Total Percentage Housework 1 0 1 5% Amputation 7 1 8 40% Office Work 1 0 1 5% Fatality 6 1 7 35% Trading 1 0 1 5% Other Wound 2 2 4 20% Collecting Food / Water 0 0 0 0% Loss of Sight 1 0 1 5% Playing 0 0 0 0% Unknown Wound 0 0 0 0% Total 16 4 20 100% Total 16 4 20 100%

Past Mine Action

A larger percentage of impacted communities reported mine action than in any other state. In Table 44, fencing, marking and MRE were reported to have occurred in over 60% of the communities. Twenty of the 77 impacted communities reported clearance prior to the TABLE 44 survey. Clearance may have COMMUNITIES REPORTING PAST MINE ACTION, BY ACTIVITY TYPE lowered the impact and reduced

Communities Reporting Percentage of the 77 Impacted the threat in the community but Mine Action Activity Such Activity in the Past Communities based on the survey findings it Marking or Fencing 49 64% seems clearance did not Mine Risk Education 47 61% completely eliminate the problem. Technical Survey 25 32% This is most probably due to the Official Clearance 20 26% fact that the clearance was Local Clearance Efforts 4 5% associated with a nearby priority

road clearance project.

60 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Central Equatoria

Field

5% 8% 2% Opinion 12% 53% 20% 100% Collection Survey Findings Preliminary

Percentage 7

38 28 17 65 175 330 Areas Dangerous

1 21 0 22

Affected 55 Not Suspected Inaccessible Inaccessible True Negatives True False Negatives False Selected for FNS Selected for communities in the state survey

TABLE 45 TABLE REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

FIGURE 6 77 SURVEY COVERAGE

Impacted

Communities 229 Total Communities Total RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE UNMAO THE IN AREAS DANGEROUS THE OF RETROFIT Equatoria from the national database at UNMAO in at UNMAO from the national database Equatoria irds, were confirmed as either suspected hazard suspected hazard confirmed as either irds, were rmined to be no longer in existence. Local be no longer in existence. rmined to nce process discussed in assura a standard quality d to potentially have a landmine problem and a d to potentially have a landmine problem communities not suspected of having a landmine communities not suspected of having Found to match an LIS SHAs SHAs Found to match an LIS have been cleared Found not to exist or to community Found not linked to an LIS Spot Clearance site UXO Found to match an LIS Not visited due to inaccessibility Not located due to missing GPS coordinates Total Dangerous Area database records in state Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Status of Dangerous Areas 0

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – 76 98 Inaccessible Inaccessible 174 True Positives True False Positives False Suspected Affected teams the DAs had already been cleared or that the area was not already been cleared or that the area teams the DAs had re 6 shows that the POC identified 229 re 6 shows that the POC identified 229 ully conducted, that is, none were found inaccessible. Another 22 ully conducted, that is, none were found Annex XI. Of these 22 visits, one visit uncovered an additional impacted community. At the end of the field work 77 communities to be were found impacted for a prevalence rate of 34%, which is to be considered a very high prevalence rate. The norm for the LIS at both the state and country level is less than 10%. Table 46 lists the 77 impacted communities in Central Equatoria.

Survey Coverage The Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) for Central Equatoria commenced in July 2007. The exceptional rain from August to November 2007 caused delays and extended the survey period. Figu Retrofit Results Results Retrofit 330 DAs in Central tasked with verifying The LIS was 203, or almost two-th Table 45 shows that Khartoum. survey visit to each was successf list of 55 communities were sampled from the POC (FNS) is problem. This sampling for false negatives areas or UXO spot clearance tasks and 65 were dete tasks and 65 were spot clearance areas or UXO told the survey community leaders Another 38 considered mined. not be linked were found but could remaining 24 to a community. The or could were either inaccessible the not be found because coordinates in the UNMAO database were incorrect. suspecte area. Of these 229 communities, 174 were

TABLE 46

LIST OF 77 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN CENTRAL EQUATORIA STATE

County Payam Boma (Community) Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims 1 Juba Bungu Kworijik Bungu 5 5 0 2 Dolo Gumbiri 3 1 0 3 Dolo Tuliang 3 1 0 4 Ganji Ganji 5 2 0 5 Ganji Koggi Kagwada 5 2 0 6 Ganji Kuli Papa 5 1 0 7 Juba Hai Nyakama 3 1 0 8 Lirya Ilyangari 9 3 2 9 Lirya Lirya 7 6 0 10 Lirya Ngangala 6 5 0 11 Lirya Ngulere 9 7 0 12 Lobonok Kit One 5 4 0 13 Lobonok Luwala 4 3 0 14 Lobonok Tombur 6 3 0 15 Lokiliri Aru 7 3 1 16 Lokiliri Ngerjabe 9 5 2 17 Lokiliri Odemo 7 2 1 18 Mangalla Mangalla 6 1 0 19 Mangalla Radolo 5 2 0 20 Munuki Dar Salam Jebel 3 1 0 21 Munuki Jebel Kujur A 4 1 0 22 Munuki Jebel Kujur B 4 1 0 23 Munuki Munuki B 3 1 0 24 Northern Bari Juba Na Bari 4 2 0 25 Northern Bari Luri 9 4 1 26 Rejaf Gumbo 4 2 0 27 Rejaf Tokiman West 3 2 0 28 Rokon Mirikiyu 7 4 0 29 Rokon Rokon 7 2 0 30 Rokon Tokokotulu 7 3 0 31 Kajo Keji Kangepo I Leikon 8 4 0 32 Kangepo II Wudu 4 1 0 33 Lire Mere 5 2 0 34 Liwolo Sokare 4 1 0 35 Ngepo Lori 5 3 0 36 Ngepo Rodo 7 1 0 37 Lainya Kenyi Kenyi 11 3 3 38 Kenyi Limbe 11 6 3 39 Kenyi Loka West 13 2 4 40 Kupera Kupera 6 3 0 41 Lainya Logwili 6 4 0 42 Lainya Lokurubang 9 5 2 43 Wuji Dongoro 4 1 0

62 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Central Equatoria

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Recent Victims Recent Victims 5 2 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 7 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 6 1 3 5 4 3 3 2 1 5 4 3 11 214 SHAs REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

6 5 3 5 3 6 4 4 3 3 7 5 4 5 4 4 5 8 3 6 9 3 4 6 5 5 5 6 5 4 8 4 6 11 n/a Impact Score Impact Score Bura TABLE 46 - CONTINUED 46 - CONTINUED TABLE 2 (Community) (Community) LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Payawa Kilikili Kilikili

Buko Girili Jombu Kowori Kowori Mayong Goja Longamere Mugwo Kendila Kendila Kindi Lasu Logo Kaya Kaya Jonkok Yuggupe Gemeiza Kembe Kembe Kende Kimba Kimba Mundari Rume Sommaring Yondu Pagara Mongo Gimunu Logo Minyori Rwonyi

Yei Yei Wudabi Aloto Tombek Giging Payam Boma Gulumbi Lasu Gemeiza LIST OF IMPACTED 77 COMMUNITIES IN CENTRAL EQUATORIA STATE - CONTINUED Yei Terekeka Morobo 76 Yei 77 Total 65 66 Mugwo 67 Mugwo 68 Mugwo 69 Mugwo 70 Otogo 71 Otogo 72 Otogo 73 Yei 74 Yei 75 Yei 53 Lojulo 54 55 56 Rijong 57 Rijong 58 Tali 59 Terekeka 60 Terekeka 61 Tindilo 62 Tindilo 63 Tindilo 64 County 45 Gulumbi 46 Gulumbi 47 Gulumbi 48 Kimba 49 Kimba 50 Kimba 51 Lojulo 52 Lojulo 44

64 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Eastern Equatoria

65 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 10 Low Impact Impact 7 0 3 0 6 4 0 2 22

Impact Impact

Medium in the southeast 4 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 in Central Equatoria 11 High Impact Impact Kenya TABLE 47 TABLE Over 168 (56%) of the 1 4 13 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

COMMUNITIES, BY COUNTY AND IMPACT LEVEL ally, it is bordered by Torit, Ikotos, and Kapoeta South. These are Torit, Ikotos, and Kapoeta South. These Kapoeta South Kapoeta Kapoeta East Kapoeta 2 Lafon 1 Ikotos North Kapoeta Total 43 Total County Total Magwi 10 Torit 7 Budi 5 es are categorized as high or medium and 28 es are categorized as high or medium is the capital of Eastern Equatoria. d as being impacted by landmines. The LIS d as being impacted ed agricultural land, non-agricultural land and ed agricultural land, non-agricultural 83,087, or 1,932 per impacted community. The total 83,087, or 1,932 per impacted community. nes Advisory Group was the implementing partner implementing was the nes Advisory Group , or communities, in eight counties. Of bomas, or communities, Torit Equatoria was conducted during the period Equatoria was conducted he survey were identified. and 471 bomas (communities). LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – payams in the north. in the northeast. Domestic

Jonglei in this state. state. in this mine Impact Survey (LIS), Ethiopia

in the south, with shares international borders with Uganda

and with Eastern Equatoria is sub-divided into nine counties: Budi, Eastern Equatoria is sub-divided into Divisions: Administrative Lafon, Kapoeta North, Kapoeta East, Magwi, further divided into 47 the west and Of the 400 communities, the LIS survey was Seventy - six percent of the impacted communiti Seventy - six percent of the impacted The population in the impacted localities totals The population in the impacted localities conducted in 220 communities and found that only 43 of the communities visited are impacted by landmines, for a prevalence rate of 11%. Of the 43 impacted communities, 11 were categorized as high 400 communities were identified in Eastern Equatoria state. Table 47 summarizes the extent of the landmine problem in the state while Map 15 depicts the geographical distribution of these communities. Based on the preliminary opinion collection (POC) and the results of the Land Impact on Communities Communities Impact on SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Eastern Equatoria casualties within a two-year period prior to t casualties within a two-year period EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Survey (LIS) in Eastern The Landmine Impact 43, or 11%, were confirme these 400 communities, 48 communities communities. In addition, associated with the 43 impacted identified 83 SHAs 79 DAs from the UNMAO clearance in 97 locations. The LIS verified requested UXO spot that 21 no longer exist. Mi database and found survey for SAC during the to rain-f total blockages reported blocked access Eastern Equatoria Equatoria Eastern 2006 and identified 400 February 2006-August housing areas. number of returnees for Eastern Equatoria is an estimated 53,434 people. number of returnees for Eastern Equatoria

impacted, 22 as medium impact, and 10 as low impact. Seventy - six percent of the impacted communities are categorized as either high or medium. Kapoeta South and Magwi counties are the most impacted counties, and together, 53% of all impacted communities are located in these two counties.

MAP 15

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN EASTERN EQUATORIA STATE

Note: A community appearing outside of the state boundary is due to the inaccuracy of the boundary information used to produce this map.

SHOWING THE CONTRASTS IN TERRAIN AND LOGISTICS, HERE AN LIS TEAM COLLECTS WATER IN RED SEA STATE (2007)

66 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Eastern Equatoria

2 6 1 1 24 15 19 15 83 67 SHAs 9% 5% 5% 2% 49% 30% 100% of Total Percentage 43% Medium Impact 8,732,650 sq Low Impact 2,424,485 sq m 12%

Impacted Impacted Communities XX 10 XX 7 XX 2 XX 4 XX 13 XX 1 XX 43 XX 1 0 , BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL S FIGURE 7 TABLE 49 TABLE TABLE 48 TABLE Communities 2,200 3,000 Number of Such Number Expected IDPs and refugees who IDPs and Number of IDPs Number PER COMMUNITY, BY FREQUENCY S SHA REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES, BY COUNTY COUNTY BY RETURNEES, OF EXPECTED NUMBER ESTIMATED SIZE OF SHA 1 21 2 13 3 4 4 2 5 2 6 1 SHAs Per Community Per Community SHAs 0,444,185 sq m Total 43 County 32,438 Magwi 10,420 Torit 4,280 Lafon Kapoeta East Kapoeta South Budi 946 XX 5 Ikotos 150 Kapoeta North Total 53,434 Total Est. Area in Eastern Equatoria, that an estimated 53,434 Equatoria, that an in Eastern High Impact 9,287,050 sq m 45% 2 ty. The actual number of ty. The actual ne impacted communities. On average, 1,250 refugees average, 1,250 refugees communities. On ne impacted LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – . Table 49 2 . The average size of 2 50, the survey identified of Komiri. Monita has two he community with the payam The list of communities at the end of this The list of communities at the end of this Figure 7 illustrates that the estimated area Figure 7 illustrates that the estimated This table also reports the estimated This table also reports recent victims. Four other communities reported four or five SHAs, an above average number for one community. shows that the number of SHAs in each impacted shows that the number of SHAs in each 21 community ranges from one to six, with and communities, or 49%, reporting one SHA one community reporting six SHAs. state report show t highest number of SHAs, six, is Monita in Budi county and the eventually return may be higher. return may be higher. eventually Table 48 shows, based on interviews with communities based on interviews Table 48 shows, to return to 43 mi IDPs are planning refugees and impacted communi to return to each are expected Casualties As summarized in Table 28 casualties from landmines during the period of June 2004- August 2006. Of these 28, 23 survived, representing a fatality rate of 18%. While 82% of the casualties in Eastern Equatoria were male an unusually high percentage of the casualties were children under 15 years of age. Eight, or 29% Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs) The LIS identified 83 SHAs in 43 impacted located in communities, of which almost 90% are Magwi the four counties of Budi, Kapoeta South, that is, and Torit. All of the 28 recent victims, casualties are in these same four counties. for the 83 SHAs is 20 km number of returnees in the 43 impacted number of returnees More than 80% of the communities by county. expected to return to estimated 53,434 refugees are from Torit and mine impacted communities though the 10 impacted Magwi counties. Even represent less than a communities in Torit communities in Eastern quarter of all impacted 30,000 expected Equatoria, the estimated all returnees to Magwi represent 60% of returnees in the mine impacted communities.

each SHA is approximately 250,000 m

were in this age group and all but one of the female casualties was a child. The data indicates that most of the casualties were engaged in livelihood activities such as herding, farming and collecting wood at the time of the incidents rather than playing or tampering.

TABLE 50

PROFILE OF CASUALTIES

Recent Victims, by Gender Recent Victims, by Age Gender Killed Survived Total Age Injured Killed Total Percentage Male 5 18 23 30 to 44 8 2 10 36% Female 0 5 5 5 to 14 6 2 8 29% Total 5 23 28 15 to 29 7 1 8 29% 60 and over 1 0 1 4% Activity at the Time of the Incident, by Gender Unknown 1 0 1 4% Activity Male Female Total Percentage 0 to 5 0 0 0 0% Farming 8 0 8 29% 45 to 59 0 0 0 0% Herding 6 1 7 25% Total 23 5 28 100% Military 6 0 6 21% Housework 0 3 3 11% Type of Wound, by Gender Unknown 1 1 2 7% Wound Male Female Total Percentage Other 1 0 1 4% Other Wound 12 3 15 53% Trade 1 0 1 4% Amputation 3 2 5 18% Collecting Food / Water 0 0 0 0% Fatality 5 0 5 18% Office Work 0 0 0 0% Loss of Sight 2 0 2 7% Playing 0 0 0 0% Unknown Wound 1 0 1 4% Total 23 5 28 100% Total 23 5 28 100%

Analysis of Economic Blockage Impacts

Figure 8 below shows that over FIGURE 8 70% of the impacted communities SHAS BLOCKING RESOURCES, WITH AND WITHOUT SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES reported that rain-fed cropland,

SHAs Reported to Have Alternatives to Blockage non-agricultural land and Resource Blocked SHAs Reported to Block Access to Resources pastureland are the primary 4 Rain-fed Cropland 65 socio-economic blockages. The 6 Non-Agricultural Land 56 data clearly indicates that land 3 Housing 47 has many uses including housing 5 Migratory Pasture 29 resulting in multiple blockages for 3 Roads 29 the vast majority of the impacted 2 communities. Fixed Pasture 28 0 Drinking Water 20 0 Past Mine Action Non-Drinking Water 20 0 Other Infrastructure 5 Table 51 shows the level of mine 0 Irrigated Cropland 0 action reported during the 0102030 40 50 60 70 80 community interviews and reflects Number of SHAs with Reports of Blockage the extent of the coverage by MAG, as the principle operator in

68 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Eastern Equatoria

the state, prior to the survey. As of TABLE 51 September 2009 MAG continues MRE, COMMUNITIES REPORTING PAST MINE ACTION, BY ACTIVITY TYPE survey and clearance in Eastern Equatoria. Communities Reporting Percentage of the 43 Mine Action Activity Such Activity in the Past Impacted Communities Technical Survey 15 35% Retrofit Results Mine Risk Education 13 30% The LIS was tasked with verifying 79 Clearance 12 28% DAs in Eastern Equatoria from the Marking or Fencing 12 28% UNMAO database. Tables 52 indicates Local Clearance Efforts 1 2% that 25 DAs did not exist or had been cleared, 22 DAs matched SHAs in the TABLE 52 communities surveyed, 13 DAs were RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE found but could not be linked to a community and five of the DAs had Dangerous Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Areas Percentage incorrect coordinates or no Found not to exist or to have been cleared 25 32% coordinates at all. Found to match an LIS SHAs 22 28% Survey Coverage Found to match an LIS UXO Spot Clearance site 14 18% Found not linked to an LIS community 13 16% Figure 9 shows that the Preliminary Not located due to missing GPS coordinates 5 6% Opinion Collection (POC) identified 400 Not visited due to inaccessibility 0 0% communities in the state. Of these 400 Total Dangerous Area database records in state 79 100% communities, 190 were suspected of being mine-affected and visits were attempted. Seventy possibly impacted communities could not be surveyed due principally to security reasons, found abandoned or could not be located in the vicinity. Seventy eight communities were visited and proven to be impact free. Another 100 FIGURE 9 communities were sampled SURVEY COVERAGE from the POC list of 210 Total Communities communities not suspected 400 of having a landmine Preliminary Opinion problem. This sampling for Collection Not Suspected false negatives (FNS) is a Suspected Affected Affected 190 210 standard quality assurance process discussed in Annex Selected for FNS XI. Of these 100 visits, one 100 visit uncovered an additional impacted Inaccessible Inaccessible 70 0 community. This resulted in Field a total of 43 communities Survey False Positives True Negatives Findings being found impacted and 78 99 an additional 48 communities requiring only True Positives False Negatives 42 1 UXO spot clearance. Table Impacted 53 on next page, lists the 43 Communities 43 impacted communities in Eastern Equatoria.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 69

TABLE 53

LIST OF 43 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN EASTERN EQUATORIA STATE

County Payam Boma (Community) Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims 1 Budi Kimotong Loriok 5 2 0 2 Kimotong Napak 3 1 0 3 Komiri Kibirich 9 5 0 4 Komiri Monita 10 6 2 5 Ngarich Ngaric 13 1 2 6 Ikotos Imotong Himodonge 3 1 0 7 Kapoeta East Katodori Bunio 1 8 1 0 8 Katodori Kanangole 9 3 0 9 Katodori Nangolet 9 1 0 10 Mogos Lotian 3 1 0 11 Kapoeta North Najie Lolepan 3 1 0 12 Kapoeta South Kapoeta Town Atlabara 6 1 0 13 Kapoeta Town Dokomiti 11 2 1 14 Kapoeta Town Hai Mustesfa 6 1 0 15 Kapoeta Town Hai Tarawa 4 1 0 16 Kapoeta Town Hamiya 8 2 0 17 Kapoeta Town Kaitap 6 1 0 18 Kapoeta Town Malakia 13 1 2 19 Kapoeta Town Morukeris 5 2 0 20 Kapoeta Town Nabulbul 8 2 1 21 Kapoeta Town Nalingaro (Mission) 7 2 0 22 Kapoeta Town Naminit 6 1 0 23 Kapoeta Town Nanaknak 11 2 1 24 Kapoeta Town Rei 16 1 4 25 Lafon Burgilo Lafon 5 1 0 26 Lohutuk Loming 4 1 0 27 Magwi Lobone Agata 6 2 0 28 Lobone Lobone 6 1 0 29 Magwi Magwe 11 2 2 30 Magwi Panyikwara 7 4 0 31 Pageri Kerepi 8 3 0 32 Pageri Loa 14 3 3 33 Pageri Moli 11 4 2 34 Pajok Pajok 9 2 0 35 Pajok Palwar 11 1 0 36 Pajok Pogee 8 2 0 37 Torit Bur Oronyo 6 1 0 38 Bur Oudo 7 1 1 39 Himodonge (Katire) Hilieu 6 3 0 40 Hiyala Tirrangare 14 1 3 41 Isaloro Imurok 8 2 0 42 Isaloro Isaloro 5 2 0 43 Lowoi Longairo 17 5 4 Total n/a 83 28

70 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Gadaref

2 2 Low 71 Impact Impact 1 1 Impact Impact Medium Medium

0 0 rvey in this state. High Impact Impact TABLE 54 TABLE 3 has an estimated population

COMMUNITIES, BY LOCALITY AND IMPACT LEVEL IMPACT AND BY LOCALITY COMMUNITIES, REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

Locality Total El Galabat Total 3 rtner for SAC during the su rtner for SAC during ties but five were either inaccessible or had communities in Gadaref as suspected of being g for false negatives (FNS) is a standard quality two years prior to the survey were reported. were reported. prior to the survey two years d in 87 communities and found that only 3 were d in 87 communities and found that only use the communities were not found to be where mmunities with four SHAs in Gadaref. The mmunities with four 35 visits, one visit uncovered an additional impacted 642 people and 1,811 IDPs are expected to return. 642 people and 1,811 landmine and/or UXO contamination in the state. -May 2007 and was found to have a minor landmine -May 2007 and was S identified a total of three mine-impacted communities is the capital. rder with Eritrea and Ethiopia, LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – month period prior to the survey. Al Qadarif

Gadaref has five localities and 173 communities. Divisions: Administrative of 1,400,000 (2000). . The LIS did not identify any recent victims 2 located in eastern Sudan on the bo The survey teams attempted visits to all 60 communi in the three communities within the 24- assurance process discussed in Annex XI. Of these community and three other visits were aborted beca been abandoned. Another 35 communities were sampled from the POC list of 113 communities not been abandoned. Another 35 communities were sampled from the POC list suspected of having a landmine problem. This samplin the team expected. As shown in Figure 10, the LI Table 55 lists the three impacted communities in Gadaref. mine-affected out of the 173 communities in the state. after visiting a total of 87 communities suspected of Survey Coverage The Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) identified 60 Impact on Communities Communities Impact on was conducte Of the 173 communities, the LIS survey currently impacted. Table 54 shows Gadaref has three currently impacted. Table 54 shows Gadaref that is near impacted communities in the same locality 1,642 the Ethiopian border. There are approximately The total people living in these impacted communities. is an number of expected returnees for Gadaref in Map 16, the estimated 1,811 people. As illustrated spot clearance LIS identified four SHAs and one UXO task in the state. The estimated area for the four SHAs is 550,000 m SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Gadaref, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY during the period February Gadaref was surveyed pa Group was the implementing problem. Mines Advisory three mine-impacted co The survey teams identified of the three communities is 1, estimated population incidents within a period of No victims from landmine Gadaref Gadaref

MAP 16

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN GADAREF STATE

72 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Gadaref

Field

0 0 0 0

Opinion Collection Survey Findings Preliminary Recent

Victims 1 1 2 4

0 32 3 35

Affected REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 113

Not Suspected True Negatives True Not Located False Negatives False Selected for FNS Selected for

3 3 6 n/a Score SHAs Impact Impact TABLE 55 TABLE FIGURE 10 FIGURE 3 SURVEY COVERAGE

Impacted

Communities 173 Total Communities Total LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Etdood LIST OF 3 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN GADAREF STATE Community Wad El Agoz El Agoz Wad Gazira Moshra El Nil 5

3 52 Inaccessible Inaccessible 60 True Positives True False Positives False Suspected Affected Total El Galabat

1 2 3 Locality

74 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Jonglei

75 5 1 2 1 4 1 14 Low Impact Impact Ayod , 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 Impact Impact Medium Medium

Twic East , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 High Impact Impact Pochalla County , TABLE 56 TABLE (communities). 2 Bor South County REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

Pibor County COMMUNITIES, BY COUNTY AND IMPACT LEVEL c groups break out frequently - some , and 438 bomas natural resources, others in retaliation for natural resources, others in retaliation Khorfulus 6 Khorfulus Bor 4 Duk 2 Nyirol 2 Twic East 1 Akobo Total 17 County Total from landmine incidents within a period of two from landmine incidents ing in impacted communities and the place of ing in impacted communities and the villages killing as many as 300 people. villages killing as many as 300 people. It has an estimated population of approximately It has an estimated population of approximately Uror County payams ’s) are reported to be impacted by landmines. ’s) are reported to be impacted by landmines. he survey in this state. The LIS identified 17 mine- he survey in this state. UNMAO database and found that 24 were no longer UNMAO database and , approximately 74,409 people living in these 17 approximately 74,409 ddition, 21 communities requested UXO spot clearance ddition, 21 communities according to the administrative gazetteer collected LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Nyirol County of the suspected hazard areas reported blocked access to rain-fed areas reported blocked access of the suspected hazard ssible to the survey teams. period January- May 2009 and was found to have a moderate landmine 2009 and was found to have a moderate period January- May

Fangak County nes after surveying a total and is the capital of the state. Akobo County, ,

Bor

Clashes in Southern Sudan between rival ethni Clashes in Southern Sudan between rival sparked by cattle rustling and disputes over sparked by cattle rustling and disputes previous attacks. In March 2009, about 750 people were killed in clashes in Pibor County. previous attacks. In March 2009, about 2009 armed Murle fighters in remote Akobo The United Nations reported on 21 April County in Jonglei had attacked Lou Nuer Khorfulus County Duk County borders Ethiopia in the eastern part of Sudan. borders Ethiopia in the eastern part of , , Approximately 74,409 people are reported to be liv Approximately 74,409 people are reported County during the POC. These are further divided into 104

County

The LIS identified 17 of the 438 communities in Jonglei as impacted by mi were communities of 94 communities. None of the 17 highly impacted, three had medium impact and 14 had low impact, as shown in Table 56. Of the 17 impacted communities identified, six are located in Khorfulus County. Map 17 depicts the geographical distribution of these communities. Impact on Communities Communities Impact on SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Jonglei 800,000 (1983) and EXECUTIVE SUMMARY during the Jonglei was surveyed Action Center implemented t problem. The Survey Jonglei Jonglei with 21 SHAs. There are impacted communities The LIS identified two casualties impacted communities. Over 84% years prior to the survey. areas. In a land, roads and housing agricultural the LIS verified 66 DAs from the in 35 locations and in existence and 19 were not acce origin for 144,978 Internally Displaced Persons (IDP origin for 144,978 Internally Displaced Jonglei State is divided into 11 counties: Jonglei State is divided into 11 counties: Divisions: Administrative

The communities that are impacted by landmine and/or UXO are distributed predominantly in Khorfulus and Bor counties which together contain 59% of the mine impacted communities in Jonglei.

MAP 17

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN JONGLEI STATE

Note: A community appearing outside of the state boundary is due to the inaccuracy of the boundary information used to produce this map.

The total number of returnees for Jonglei is an estimated 144,978 people, which represents 21% of all potential returnees identified by the survey. Table 57 indicates that Khorfulus, Nyirol and Twic East are expecting the greatest number of returnees with an estimated number of 137,220 people in 10 impacted TABLE 57 communities containing 13 SHAs. EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES, BY COUNTY

Expected Impacted County Number of IDPs Communities SHAs Khorfulus 106,900 XX 6 7 Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs)

Nyirol 24,700 XX 2 4 Figure 11 shows that the estimated area for the SHAs in Twic East 5,620 XX 2 2 Jonglei is 3.6 km2. The average size of the 21 SHAs is Bor 4,600 XX 4 5 slightly more than 180,000 m2. Table 58 shows that 14 of Akobo 2,100 XX 1 1 the 17 impacted communities have one SHA. The most Duk 1,028 XX 2 2 SHAs reported by a community were three. Total 144,948 XX 17 21

76 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Jonglei

77 0% 0% 0% 6% 50% 50% 82% 12% 100% 100% of Total 16 Percentage 1 0 0 0 1 2

12 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 TABLE 58 TABLE TABLE 59 TABLE Communities Communities 1 0 0 Number of Such Number Male FemaleTotal Percentage SHAs Reported to Have Alternatives to Blockage SHAs Reported to Block Access to Resources PROFILE OF CASUALTIES PER COMMUNITY, BY FREQUENCY PER COMMUNITY, MITIGATING ALTERNATIVES S SHA 5 4 1 14 2 2 3 1 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN FIGURE 12 FIGURE

SHAs Per SHAs Community Loss of Sight Loss of Wound Other Total 2 Type of Wound, by GenderFatality 1 Unknown Wound 0 Amputation Wound 17 Total 2 2 2 2 1 1 BLOCKING RESOURCES AND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S

0 5 10 15 20 Roads REPORTED SHA Housing Resource Blocked LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Low Impact 3,149,150 sq m 87% Total Est. Area sq m 3,622,270 Fixed Pasture Fixed Drinking Water Migratory Pasture Rain-fed Cropland Irrigated Cropland Irrigated Other Infrastructure Non-Drinking Water on-Agricultural Land on-Agricultural N , BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL , BY COMMUNITY S FIGURE 11 FIGURE One survived although the ESTIMATED SIZE OF SHA edium Impact 73,120 sq m 73,120 sq 13% M 4 type of wound from the incident was not known. type of wound from the incident was not Analysis of Economic Impacts Blockage Figure 12 shows that 36% of the blockages were reported roads and 27% blockage of rain-fed areas, while agricultural the lowest reported blockage was drinking water. However, of the 45 blockages reported, the community informants in 12 occasions stated that a sufficiently suitable alternative resource existed and therefore the direct impact on the community was somewhat diminished. Casualties casualties in Table 59 shows the LIS identified two Jonglei were both male.

Past Mine Action

Very little mine action prior to the survey was reported by the local communities. Three communities reported MRE and one reported clearance as recorded in Table 60.

Retrofit Results TABLE 60

COMMUNITIES REPORTING PAST MINE ACTION, BY ACTIVITY TYPE The LIS was tasked with verifying 66 DAs in Jonglei. Communities Reporting Percentage of the 17 Mine Action Activity Such Activity in the Past Impacted Communities Table 61 shows that 24 no Mine Risk Education 3 18% longer exist as confirmed by Marking or Fencing 1 6% local community leaders Official Clearance 1 6% because they were either Local Clearance Efforts 0 0% previously cleared or no

longer considered mined.

Further, the table shows that

TABLE 61 11 matched SHAs in the communities surveyed, seven RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE were found but could not be Dangerous linked to a community, three Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Areas Percentage were identified as UXO spot Found not to exist or to have been cleared 24 36% clearance, 19 were located in Not visited due to inaccessibility 19 29% areas that were inaccessible to Found to match an LIS SHAs 11 17% the survey teams due to Found not linked to an LIS community 7 11% insecurity or difficult terrain, Found to match an LIS UXO Spot Clearance site 3 5% and two had incorrect Not located due to incorrect/missing coordinates 2 3% coordinates or no coordinates Total Dangerous Area database records in state 66 100% at all.

Survey Coverage

As shown in Figure 13, the Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) identified 438 communities in the state. Of these 438 communities, 147 suspected of being mine-affected and visits were attempted. Sixty-one possibly impacted communities could not be surveyed due to a combination of reasons (inaccessible, abandoned, and security). In particular, for security reasons it was not possible to conduct the survey in Pibor, Old Fangak and Akobo counties. Another 22 communities were sampled from the POC list of 291 communities not suspected of having a landmine problem. This sampling for false negatives (FNS) is a standard quality assurance process discussed in Annex XI. Of these 22 visits, one visit uncovered an additional impacted community and 14 visits had to be aborted due to inaccessibility. Ultimately, 17 communities were found to be impacted by mines and another 21 communities require UXO spot clearance. Table 62 lists the 17 impacted communities in Jonglei.

78 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Jonglei

FIGURE 13

SURVEY COVERAGE

Total Communities 438

Preliminary Opinion Collection Not Suspected Suspected Affected Affected 147 291

Selected for FNS 22

Inaccessible or Abandoned 26 Inaccessible Security Issues 22 14 Terrain Issues 13 Field Survey False Positives True Negatives Findings 70 7

True Positives False Negatives 16 1 Impacted Communities 17

TABLE 62

LIST OF 17 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN JONGLEI STATE

County Payam Boma (Community) Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims 1 Akobo Diror Kaikuin 3 1 0 2 Bor Anyidi Mareng 4 1 0 3 Baidit Tong 4 1 0 4 Bor Pakuau 5 2 0 5 Makuac Makuac 4 1 0 6 Duk Ageer Poktap 7 1 2 7 Duk Payuel Akoi 4 1 0 8 Khorfulus Khorfulus Nyinthok 5 2 0 9 Khorfulus Nyith 5 1 0 10 Wunlam Khan 5 1 0 11 Wunlam Wunadol 5 1 0 12 Wunlam Wunkech 5 1 0 13 Wunlam Wunlem 6 1 0 14 Nyirol Waat Riim 3 1 0 15 Waat Waat 7 3 0 16 Twic East Kongor Garalei 5 1 0 17 Lith Pabarchekok 4 1 0 Total n/a 21 2

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 79

80 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Kassala

81 0 3 7 2 0 12 Low Impact Impact 1 2 3 1 3 10 Impact Impact Medium

0 2 1 1 6 High Impact Impact TABLE 63 TABLE 1 2 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN COMMUNITIES, BY LOCALITY AND IMPACT LEVEL IMPACT AND BY LOCALITY COMMUNITIES,

ct of the survey the LIS verified 36 ct of the survey the is the capital of the state. The state is is the capital of the state. The state is Talkuk 12 Wadel Hiliow Wadel Shamal Eldalta Total 28 Total Locality Total 7 2 Korieb Hamish 6 Kassala in Kassala during the period of February - in Kassala during the ties. In addition, the LIS identified 18 UXO spot ties. In addition, the riod prior to the survey, which ranks Kassala riod prior to the survey, Kassala rate of 5%. As Table 63 indicates, of those 28 rate of 5%. As Table 63 indicates, of those 11 were inaccessible. The survey also found that 11 were inaccessible. The survey also rvey was conducted in 164 communities and found 28 rvey was conducted in 164 communities e high, 10 medium and 12 low impact. There are e high, 10 medium ry Group was the implementing partner for SAC ry Group was the implementing from the 28 impacted communities but had not from the 28 impacted communities but LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – in Sudan. In the retrofit aspe in Sudan. In the retrofit

in eastern Sudan. The town of

this state. state. this

. The closest suspected hazard area to . The closest suspected hazard area to divided into 10 localities with 554 communities locality, and is 387 kilometers away. Khartoum is in Nazlah Omedah, Kassala borders Eritrea

Table 64 shows that 27,194 people in all five As Map 18 illustrates, the mine-impacted The LIS identified 32 casualties within a two-year pe The LIS identified 32 returned as of May 2007. an estimated 27,194 IDPs and refugees originate an estimated 27,194 IDPs and refugees dangerous areas and found that 12 no longer exist and dangerous areas and found that 12 no localities are expected to return to Kassala. Two- thirds of the expected returnees are from Talkuk and Hamashkorieb counties. Talkuk is the most heavily impacted locality in Kassala with 12 impacted communities. communities identified by the LIS, six were categorized as high impact, 10 as medium impact and 12 as low impact. communities are clustered along the borders of Eritrea leaving large areas of Kassala and other parts of eastern Sudan with no impact from mines. first in terms of the most casualties first in terms of the Communities Impact on the LIS su Of the 554 communities in Kassala state, for a prevalence communities impacted by landmines, SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Kassala EXECUTIVE SUMMARY communities and 56 SHAs The LIS found 28 mine-impacted during the survey in Kassala Kassala impacted communities six ar May 2007. Of the 28 people living in these 28 communi approximately 98,715 communities. Mines Adviso clearance tasks in 11

MAP 18

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN KASSALA STATE

TABLE 64

EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES, BY LOCALITY

Expected Impacted Locality Number of IDPs Communities SHAs Kassala 11,084 XX 6 10 Talkuk 7,580 XX 12 25

Wadel Hiliow 4,900 XX 2 5 Hamashkorieb 3,280 XX 7 15

Shamal Eldalta 350 XX 1 1 Total 27,194 XX 28 56

82 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Kassala m

83 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 31% 16% 16% 50% 13% 28% 44% 100% Percentage Percentage Medium Impact 7,387,675 sq 28% 6,186,500 sq m 23% Low Impact Low Impact

0 0 5 1 0 5 0 4 9 10 16 14 32 32 Total Total Total Total

0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 5 8 16 Killed Female Female , BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL , BY COMMUNITY

S FIGURE 14 FIGURE

0 9 1 0 4 0 2 4 6

REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

ESTIMATED SIZE OF SHA 5 to 14 Unknown 0 Wound Male Wound Other Unknown Wound 0 to 5 Total 30 Recent Victims, by Age Type of Wound, by Gender 45 to 59 Total 16 Fatality 15 5 Amputation Sight Loss of 15 to 29 60 and over Injured Age Injured 30 to 44

6,816,675 sq m 3,242,500 sq m landmines were blocking housing or water. No Total Est. Area High Impact 49% 1 2 TABLE 65 TABLE

migratory pasture were almost equally identified as 0% 13% 59% 100% PROFILE OF CASUALTIES Percentage

0 2 6% 4 2 3 9% 3 9% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 19 30 32 32 LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Total Total Total

. The average . The average 2

0 2 0 1 0 survivors suffered amputation of a limb. survivors suffered amputation of a limb. 15 16 Female Survived prior to the survey. All prior to the survey. 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

. 2 Office Work Work Activity Office Military / water Collecting food Total 30 Other 4 Other Farming Trading Work Unknown House Playing Female 1 Total 16 Activity at theActivity Male Time of theHerding 19 Incident, by Gender Recent Victims, by Gender Gender Killed Male 15 size of an SHA was measured at approximately at approximately measured size of an SHA was 480,000 m

socioeconomic blockages. A few communities reported community in Kassala identified landmines blocking irrigated cropland. Analysis of Economic Blockage Impacts Figure 15 shows that roads, fixed pastureland and Table 65 shows the LIS identified 32 casualties Table 65 shows the period within the 24-month 16 have survived, were in 32 casualties, of whom Five Hamish Koriab and Wadel Hilliow localities. age. The victims were younger than 15 years of years of age majority were men between 30 and 44 and trading. Two of the 32 casualties were women, and one who were engaged in farming, herding died from her injuries. Five of the Figure 14 shows the estimated area for the 56 area for the 56 shows the estimated Figure 14 27 km in the LIS is SHAs identified Casualties Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs)Suspected

The survey teams asked the representatives in the mine-impacted communities whether there were alternatives to the socioeconomic blockages. As Figure 15 illustrates, in the eyes of the communities, sufficient alternatives exist for the residents to lessen the impact of some of these blockages. The communities reported that alternatives were available FIGURE 15 in some areas where SHAS BLOCKING RESOURCES, WITH AND WITHOUT SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES pasture and roads were

SHAs Reported to Have Alternatives to Blockage blocked. No sufficient Resource Blocked SHAs Reported to Block Access to Resources alternatives were reported 5 Fixed Pasture 25 for housing, rain-fed 1 Roads 23 cropland, and migratory 0 Migratory Pasture 20 pasture blocked by mines. 1 Non-Agricultural Land 8

0 Rain-fed Cropland 8 0 Housing 6 1 Drinking Water 4 2 Non-Drinking Water 3 1 Other Infrastructure 2 0 Irrigated Cropland 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of SHAs with Reports of Blockage

Past Mine Action

The LIS found that little mine action had occurred in Kassala prior to the survey in 2007. As shown in Table 66, MRE was the most common mine action activity reported. Four of the 28 impacted communities reported marking or fencing.

TABLE 66

COMMUNITIES REPORTING PAST MINE ACTION, BY ACTIVITY TYPE

Communities Reporting Percentage of the 28 Mine Action Activity Such Activity in the Past Impacted Communities

Mine Risk Education 10 36% Official Clearance 5 18% Marking or Fencing 4 14% Technical Survey 4 14% Local Clearance Efforts 1 4%

84 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Kassala

85 8% 0% 6% 22% 31% 33% 100% Percentage

8 3 0 2 11 36 12

Areas Dangerous

Field

Opinion Collection Survey Findings Preliminary

due principally to being TABLE 67 TABLE 3

REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

3 72 83

Affected 457 Not Suspected True Negatives True False Negatives False Selected for FNS Selected for Inaccessible Abandoned 1 Not Located 4 visits had to be aborted due to inaccessibility. visits had to be aborted due to inaccessibility.

could not be surveyed ted. Another 83 communities were sampled from ted. Another 83 communities were sampled RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE DATABASE UNMAO THE IN AREAS DANGEROUS THE OF RETROFIT g mine-affected and visits by the survey teams g mine-affected and visits by the survey ving a landmine problem. This sampling for false ving a landmine problem. This sampling ction (POC) identified 554 communities in Kassala. ction (POC) identified 554 communities e 68 lists the 28 impacted communities in Kassala. e 68 lists the 28 impacted communities FIGURE 16 FIGURE 28 SURVEY COVERAGE

Found not to exist or to have been cleared Found not to exist or to Not visited due to inaccessibility SHAs Found to match an LIS LIS community Found not linked to an Spot Clearance site Found to match an LIS UXO GPS coordinates Not located due to missing Total records in state Dangerous Area database Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Status of Dangerous Areas Impacted

Communities 554 LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Total Communities Total y assurance process discussed in Annex XI. Of these 83 visits, three y assurance process discussed in Annex 2 6

25 64 97 True Positives True False Positives False Inaccessible Not Located Suspected Affected found abandoned or the community could not be loca found abandoned or the community could negatives (FNS) is a standard qualit uncovered and 8 additional impacted communities were Figure 16 shows that the Preliminary Opinion Colle Figure 16 shows that the Preliminary Opinion of ha the POC list of 457 communities not suspected 28 communities were found to be impacted and 11 Ultimately, of the 89 communities visited Tabl communities required UXO spot clearance. Survey Coverage Of these 554 communities, 97 were suspected of bein Of these 554 communities, 97 were suspected communities were attempted. Eight possibly impacted Retrofit Results Results Retrofit 36 tasked with verifying The LIS was twelve In Table 67, DAs in Kassala. as confirmed were found not to exist leaders, 11 by the local community that were were located in areas survey teams; inaccessible to the in the eight matched SHAs three were communities surveyed, be linked to a found but could not were identified community, and two as UXO spot clearance.

TABLE 68

LIST OF 28 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN KASSALA STATE

Locality Administrative Unit Community Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims 1 Hamashkorieb Aroma Timikrif 3 2 0 2 Hamish Koraib Contaneeb 6 1 0 3 Hamish Koraib Hamish Koriab Garb 11 4 3 4 Hamish Koraib Rasai 16 4 5 5 Hamish Koraib Tashalal 6 1 0 6 Hamish Koraib Wandi 5 2 0 7 Hamish Koriab Darasta 3 1 0 8 Kassala Garb Kassala Garada 6 4 1 9 Garb Kassala Nazlah Omedah 5 1 0 10 Garib Kassala Um Braga 13 1 4 11 Refie Kassala Abu Gamel 8 2 1 12 Refie Kassala Al lafa 8 1 1 13 Refie Kassala El Shokria 3 1 0 14 Shamal Eldalta Wagar Sarabotic Moaskar Digna 7 1 1 15 Talkuk Talkuk El Gabarit 4 2 0 16 Talkuk El Shotiai 4 1 0 17 Talkuk Gadamaeet El Masjed 6 1 0 18 Talkuk Haldeet Sharg 9 3 2 19 Talkuk Hamtiyai 4 2 0 20 Talkuk Haroni 4 1 0 21 Talkuk Khashom Tahadai 4 2 0 22 Talkuk Maswad 4 1 0 23 Talkuk Tahadie Osis 11 2 3 24 Talkuk Talkuk El Masjed 4 6 0 25 Talkuk Togan El Nogta 11 3 2 26 Talkuk Togan Emaygat 6 1 0 27 Wadel Hiliow Wadel Hiliow El Gargaf 8 2 2 28 Wadel Hiliow Hamdaeet 19 3 7 Total n/a 56 32

86 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Lakes

87 1 1 Low Impact Impact 100% Percentage 0 0 Impact Impact Medium

rvey in this state. state. in this rvey 6 16% 6 16% 0 0% 0 0% 12 32% 13 35% 37 0 0 Areas High Dangerous Impact Impact nity leaders as either TABLE 69 TABLE can be said that Lakes state can be said that Lakes COMMUNITIES, BY COUNTY AND IMPACT LEVEL TABLE 70 TABLE REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN Total 1 County Total Cuibet 1

rtner for SAC during the su rtner for SAC during confirmed by local commu ed, in the 24 months prior to the survey were ed, in the 24 months ne UXO spot clearance tasks in seven communities ne UXO spot clearance RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE UNMAO THE IN AREAS DANGEROUS THE OF RETROFIT ne or UXO contamination. The LIS identified just one ne or UXO contamination. LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Total Area database records in state Dangerous Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Found not linked to an LIS community Not visited due to inaccessibility Found to match an LIS SHAs Not located due to missing GPS coordinates Found not to exist or to have been cleared Found to match an LIS UXO Spot Clearance site period September 2007 - January 2008, it period September riod prior to the survey.

is the capital of the state. and 154 bomas (communities).

Rumbek which are Aweil Rial, Lakes is sub-divided into eight counties Divisions: Administrative Wulu, Yirol East, and Yirol West; 47 Maper, Cuibet, Rumbek Central, Rumbek East, payams has an estimated population of 350,000 (year: 2000). has an estimated population of 350,000 is in the central part of South Sudan. It

state

Survey Coverage Figure 17 indicates that the Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) identified 29 communities by impacted in Lakes as possibly landmines from the 154 The LIS was tasked with verifying 37 DAs of the UNMAO database in Lakes. Table 70 shows that 13 DAs The LIS was tasked with verifying 37 DAs of the UNMAO are UXO spot clearance tasks and 12 no longer exist as Retrofit Results Results Retrofit previously cleared or no longer considered a threat. Further, Table 70 also shows that six DAs were found but could not be linked to a community and six DAs could not be surveyed. Impact on Communities Communities Impact on teams visited 52 Of the 154 communities in Lakes, the LIS in all, Lakes recorded communities. Table 69 shows that all one Suspected only one low impacted community with from one Hazard Area. The LIS identified two casualties community within the 24-month pe were identified and two casualties, one of whom surviv were identified and pa Group was the implementing reported. Mines Advisory northwest of Map 19 shows the lone impacted community Rumbek near the border with Warrab. SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Lakes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY during the Based on the LIS results problem related to landmi does not have a major and one SHA in Lakes state. Ni impacted community Lakes Lakes

MAP 19 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN LAKES STATE

FIGURE 17

SURVEY COVERAGE communities in the state. The survey teams visited these 29 communities. An Total Communities 154 additional 27 communities Preliminary Opinion were sampled from the Collection Not Suspected POC list of 125 communi- Suspected Affected Affected 29 125 ties not suspected of having a landmine

Selected for FNS problem. This sampling 27 for false negatives (FNS)

Inaccessible 1 is a standard quality Inaccessible Abandoned 0 1 assurance process Not Located 2 Field discussed in Annex XI. Survey False Positives True Negatives Findings Of these 27 visits, no 28 23 additional impacted communities were True Positives False Negatives 1 0 discovered, however four Impacted of the planned visits could Communities 1 not be completed. Ultimately, only one impacted community was TABLE 71 reported. Table 71 lists LIST OF THE SINGLE IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN LAKES STATE the single impacted County Payam Boma (Community) Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims community in Lakes state. 1 Cuibet Malou Pec Bargel 7 1 2 Total n/a 1 2

88 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Northern Bahr El Ghazal

89 1 2 1 1 Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 Impact Impact Recent Victims 0 0 0 0 0 5

Impact Impact 2 1 2 1 1 7 Medium SHAs 0 0 0 0 0 High Impact Impact survey were reported. were reported. survey TABLE 72 TABLE 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 5 Impacted Impacted Communities Communities TABLE 73 TABLE ern Bahr El Ghazal to the west and REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

COMMUNITIES, BY COUNTY AND IMPACT LEVEL AND RECENT VICTIMS, BY COUNTY S il is the capital of the state. During the il is the capital of the state. During the considerable damage as it was both on the considerable damage as it was both on SHA Awulic Awulic Nyoc - Awany Nyoc - Awany Mangargier Mayom Wel Mayom Wel Gomjuer Payam Aweil South Aweil Total County Total Center Aweil East Aweil West Aweil Total ey teams with 28 dangerous areas (DAs) to verify. ey teams with 28 dangerous he 24 months prior to the he 24 months prior ed communities. Additionally, the LIS identified 21 ed communities. Additionally, during the period February-April 2007 and located during the period February-April isted. Mines Advisory Group was the implementing isted. Mines Advisory County Aweil East Aweil South Aweil South Aweil West Aweil Total Aweil Center Center Aweil LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY –

rvey in this state. state. in this rvey borders Southern Darfur to the north, West borders Southern Darfur to the north,

south, and Warrab and Abbyei to the east. Awe south, and Warrab and Abbyei to the of its proximity to Kordofan. railway line to Wau and also because and 192 Northern Bahr El Ghazal has five counties Divisions: Administrative communities. long conflict Northern Bahr El Ghazal suffered long conflict Northern Bahr El Ghazal . 2

Table 73 shows that seven SHAs are located in four counties. The survey recorded no recent victims. There were 21 UXO spot clearance tasks. The estimated area for the SHAs is 391,700 m Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs) There were seven SHAs associated with the impact There were seven SHAs surveys. The LIS teams conducted 117 community are Table 72 shows all five impacted communities categorized as low impact. There are the impacted approximately 4,510 people living in expected to communities and another 630 IDPs are return. As illustrated on Map 20 the impacted communities are clustered in the south and east of the state. Impact on Communities Communities Impact on UXO spot clearance tasks. UNMAO provided the surv UXO spot clearance found that 20 no longer ex Of these 28, the survey the su partner for SAC during Northern Bahr El Ghazal SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bahr El Ghazal was conducted The LIS in Northern Northern Bahr El Ghazal El Ghazal Bahr Northern communities. No casualties in t five mine impacted

MAP 20

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN BAHR EL GHAZAL STATE

Retrofit Results

UNMAO requested that 28 DAs in its database be verified. Table 74 shows four were matched as a SHA and the local community leaders confirmed 20 DAs had either been being cleared or are no longer considered dangerous.

TABLE 74

RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE

Dangerous Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Areas Percentage Found not to exist or to have been cleared 20 71% Found to match an LIS SHAs 4 14% Found not linked to an LIS community 2 7% Not located due to missing GPS coordinates 1 4% Not visited due to inaccessibility 1 4% Found to match an LIS UXO Spot Clearance site 0 0% Total Dangerous Area database records in state 28 100%

90 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Northern Bahr El Ghazal

Field

0 0 0 0 0 0 Opinion Collection Survey Findings Preliminary

Recent Victims 1 2 7 1 1 2 SHAs SHAs REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

0 37 3 40

3 3 3 3 4 Affected n/a 107 Not Suspected Inaccessible Inaccessible True Negatives True False Negatives False Selected for FNS Selected for Impact Score Impact Score

ne problem. This sampling for false negatives ne problem. This ne-affected out of the total of 192 communities in 192 communities out of the total of ne-affected NORTHERN BAHR EL GHAZAL STATE EL GHAZAL BAHR NORTHERN lists the five impacted communities in Northern lists the five impacted TABLE 75 TABLE sit these 85 communities but five were either communities but sit these 85 FIGURE 18 FIGURE (Community) (Community) Aliet Aliet 5 SURVEY COVERAGE

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Impacted Tier Nyoc Awany Nyoc Awany

Mayom Wel Mayom Wel Maduany Wed Weil

Communities 192 Total Communities Total 4 Awulic Awulic

Gomjuer Mayom Wel Mayom Wel Nyoc - Awany Nyoc - Awany Payam Boma Mangargier LIST OF 5 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN

5 75 85 True Positives True False Positives False Inaccessible Abandoned 1 Suspected Affected Aweil South South Aweil Aweil West Aweil East Aweil County 2 3 4 5 Total Aweil Center 1 Aweil

Bahr El Ghazal. Bahr Survey Coverage Survey Coverage in identified 85 communities Collection (POC) Opinion shows that the Preliminary Figure 18 mi suspected of being Bahr El Ghazal as Northern attempted to vi The survey teams the state. from the POC list of were sampled been abandoned. Another 40 communities inaccessible or had suspected of having a landmi 107 communities not XI. Of these 40 visits, no quality assurance process discussed in Annex (FNS) is a standard communities were Ultimately, five impacted communities were discovered. additional impacted Bahr El Ghazal. Table 75 recorded in Northern

92 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Red Sea

93 1 1 Low Impact Impact

0 0 Impact Impact Medium 0 0 High Impact Impact in this state. TABLE 76 TABLE is the capital where half of the REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

COMMUNITIES, BY LOCALITY AND IMPACT LEVEL IMPACT AND BY LOCALITY COMMUNITIES, Port Sudan one of the poorest states in Sudan. There are one of the poorest states in Sudan. There Ageeg 1 Ageeg Locality Total Total 1 The LIS found that all 41 DAs no longer exist. a is 2,100 people. The LIS did not identify any lated to landmines or UXOs within the 24-month eas that has been identified by the Sudan Landmine approximately 700,000 (2000). The terrain and approximately 700,000 (2000). The terrain SAC during the survey SAC during the survey ed communities in the state. The one impacted ed communities in of Ageeg, is categorized as low impact and has two of Ageeg, is categorized survey were identified. An estimated 2,100 people are survey were identified. e approximately 4,000 people currently living. Mines e approximately 4,000 period February-May 2007 and identified one mine period February-May LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY –

2 living conditions are harsh. It is considered 13 administrative units and 338 communities. population in the state resides. in northeastern Sudan, has a population of in northeastern Sudan, has a population ,

The estimated number of the returnees for Red Se recent victims in the only one impacted community re period prior to the survey. Results Retrofit UNMAO provided SAC with a list of 41 dangerous ar Information and Response Initiative (SLIRI) in 2001-2004. Advisory Group was the implementing partner for Advisory Group was Impact on Communities Communities Impact on conducted Of the 338 communities, the LIS teams that surveys in 49 communities. Table 76 shows Red Sea was found to have only one low-impacted the impacted community. As illustrated on Map 21, corner of the community is located in the southeast identified state near the Eritrean border. The LIS two SHAS and three UXO spot clearance tasks in the state. The estimated area for the two SHAs in Red Sea is 18,400 m SHAs. No casualties in the two years prior to the SHAs. No casualties to El Marafeet where there ar expected to return Red Sea SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background EXECUTIVE SUMMARY was conducted during the The LIS in Red Sea among the total of 338 report impacted community in the administrative unit community, El Marafeet Red Sea Red Sea

MAP 21

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN RED SEA STATE

Survey Coverage

Figure 19 shows that the Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) identified 42 communities in Red Sea as suspected of being mine-affected out of the total of 338 communities in the state. The survey teams attempted to visit all 42 communities, however five proved to be inaccessible due to security concerns or because of their remoteness. Another 12 communities were sampled from the POC list of 296 communities not suspected of having a landmine problem. This sampling for false negatives (FNS) is a standard quality assurance process discussed in Annex XI. Of these 12 visits, no additional impacted communities were uncovered. Table 77 lists the single impacted community in Red Sea state.

94 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Red Sea

Field

Opinion Collection Survey Findings Preliminary

0 0 Recent Victims Recent 2 2

0 12 0 12

REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

Affected 296 Not Suspected Inaccessible Inaccessible True Negatives True False Negatives False Selected for FNS Selected for 4 n/a

SHAs SHAs Score Impact TABLE 77 TABLE FIGURE 19 FIGURE 1 SURVEY COVERAGE

Impacted El Marafeet El Community

Communities 338 Total Communities Total LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – LIST OF THE SINGLE IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN RED SEA STATE

Ageeg 5

1 36 Inaccessible Inaccessible 42 True Positives True False Positives False Suspected Affected Administrative Unit Unit Administrative Locality 1 Ageeg Total

96 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Sennar

, which

Blue Nile river, Sennar Dam (2007) landmines. Mines Advisory Group landmines. Mines REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

as suspected of being mine-affected out of the pulation of slightly more than one million people pulation of slightly more than one million lem. This sampling for false negatives (FNS) is a visited the three communities and determined that period January-February 2007 and no mine impacted period January-February . The capital is located close to the irrigation. ng the survey in this state. ng the survey in this Sennar LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – ENTRANCE TO DINDER NATIONAL PARK IN SENNAR l park authorities as free from l park authorities as ss discussed in Annex XI. Of these additional 20 visits, again no

was constructed in 1925 for crop units and 243 The state is divided into eight administrative Divisions: Administrative communities. ic activity. Sennar, a town on the in which agriculture is the main econom is the capital of the state of is located in eastern Sudan with an estimated po is located in eastern Sudan with an estimated

Survey Coverage The preliminary opinion collection (POC) identified three communities in Sennar total 248 communities in the state. The survey teams communities were sampled from the POC list of none of them were impacted by mines. Another 20 communities not suspected of having a landmine prob standard quality assurance proce impacted communities were discovered. As Map 22 indicates, Dinder National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is located in the southeastern part of the state near Ethiopia. It is one of two parks in Sudan designated as a biosphere reserve and consists of 16,000 acres (6,475 hectares). The survey did not find any mined areas in the park. Impact on Communities Communities Impact on SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Sennar EXECUTIVE SUMMARY in Sennar state during the The LIS was conducted World Heritage site and a biosphere recorded. Dinder National Park, a UNESCO communities were by the nationa reserve, was certified Sennar Sennar

was the implementing partner for SAC duri was the implementing

MAP 22

DINDER NATIONAL PARK IN SENNAR STATE

MICROSOFT® MAPPOINT®

98 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Southern Kordofan 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

25 11 37 Low Impact Impact 99 is

and North : 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 Impact Impact Medium states

0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 High Impact Impact TABLE 78 TABLE Southern Kordofan Southern 0 1 0 emented the survey in emented the survey COMMUNITIES, BY LOCALITY AND IMPACT LEVEL IMPACT AND BY LOCALITY COMMUNITIES, REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

he period September 2008 - January he period September Comprehensive Peace Agreement Kadugli 33 Kadugli Abbyei 0 Abbyei Foula Al Al Lagawa 0 Alkailak Rashad 0 Talodi 0 Total 48 Total Locality Total Dileng 14 Gibieha Abu . In August 2005, West Kordofan State . In August 2005, West Kordofan State ogram in the Nuba Mountains after the fighting took place during the civil war. fighting took place during the civil war. ing in impacted communities and the place of ing in impacted communities and the . Kadugli is the capital and the Nuba people are . Kadugli is the capital and the Nuba people 1994 it was divided into three federal ) is reported to be in Southern Kordofan and ) is reported to be in Southern Kordofan MAO database and found that 119 DAs no longer MAO database and ed communities identified, 33 (69%) are located in ed communities identified, Survey Action Center impl Survey Action Center ss than 2% of all SHAs have claimed a victim in the of all SHAs have claimed a victim ss than 2% and Southern Kordofan States. Sudan . In the intensive Mine Risk Education coverage (81%) in the intensive Mine Risk Education coverage of Sudan LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – states state was conducted during t state was conducted

Southern Kordofan, and West Kordofan ,

The United Nations began its mine action pr its territory divided between North was abolished as part of the implementation of the was abolished as part of the implementation Kordofan now one of the 25 current located in Southern Kordofan where intensive ctims from landmine incidents within a period of two years prior years two a period of The survey teams reported seven victims from landmine incidents within Approximately 292,542 people are reported to be liv Approximately 292,542 people are reported cease-fire agreement was signed in 2002. this state. state. this were fatal. Le to the survey. Two of these incidents last two years. This low result may be related to last two years. This low result may be the impacted communities. impacted by landmines. origin for 72,089 Internally Displaced Persons (IDP’s origin for 72,089 Internally Displaced Southern Kordofan is sub- Divisions: Administrative divided into nine localities: Kadugli, Al Lagawa, Talodi, Rashad, Dilleng, Al Foula, Abbyei, Abu Geibieha, and Alkailak according to the administrative gazetteer collected in the POC. These are further divided into 38 administrative units and 1,145 communities. Impact on Communities Communities Impact on Of the 1,145 communities in the state, the LIS survey was conducted in 309 communities and found that only 48 were impacted by landmines. Table 78 shows the LIS recorded two high-impacted, nine medium-impacted and 37 low impacted communities in Southern Kordofan. SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Kordofan was a former province in central EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kordofan The LIS survey of Southern with high, nine medium and 37 low impacted, 48 mine-impacted communities: two 2009 and identified Area (SHAs). Of the 48 impact 98 Suspected Hazard Southern Kordofan Kordofan Southern spot clearance in 27 locations. The LIS UXO addition, 19 communities requested Kadugli locality. In and 54 minefields from the UN also verified 197 DAs existed according to local community leaders. The existed according to

All but one of the impacted communities are in the Kadugli and Dileng localities, where the Nuba Mountains are located.

As illustrated in Map 23 the mine impacted communities are located in the center of Southern Kordofan leaving both the eastern and western localities in the state without mine impacted communities.

MAP 23

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN KORDOFAN STATE

The LIS identified 98 SHAs in Southern Kordofan, of which 59% are in Kadugli locality, as indicated in Table 79. The LIS also reported 27 UXO spots in the state.

The total number of returnees in mine impacted TABLE 79 communities for Southern Kordofan is an estimated EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES, BY LOCALITY 72,089 people, which represents approximately 10% of Expected Impacted all returnees to mine impacted communities in Sudan. Locality Number of IDPs Communities SHAs Dileng 36,968 XX 14 39 Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs) Kadugli 35,071 XX 33 58 Abu Gibieha 50 XX 1 1 Table 80 shows that 29 impacted communities have Abbyei 0 XX 0 0 one SHA and that 14 communities have three or more Al Foula 0 XX 0 0 SHAs. Wali community in Dileng locality reported the Al Lagawa 0 XX 0 0 most SHAs in one community with ten. The four Alkailak 0 XX 0 0 casualties reported in Wali are all children under 15 Rashad 0 XX 0 0 years of age. Talodi 0 XX 0 0 Figure 20 shows that the estimated area for the Total 72,089 XX 48 98 SHAs in Southern Kordofan is 15.9 km2, which averages to slightly more than 160,000 m2 for each SHA. The high impacted areas cover 1.3 km2 where as the medium-and low-impacted areas amount for a total of 14.5 km2.

100 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Southern Kordofan

TABLE 80 FIGURE 20

SHAS PER COMMUNITY, BY FREQUENCY ESTIMATED SIZE OF SHAS, BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL

SHAs Per Number of Such Percentage High Impact Community Communities of Total Low Impact 1,337,270 sq m 7,987,951 sq m 1 29 30% 8% 50% 2 5 10% 3 7 21% 4 3 12% 5 2 10% 6 1 6% 10 1 10% Total 48 100% Medium Impact 6,557,154 sq m Total Est. Area 41% 15,882,375 sq m Casualities

Table 81 shows that within the 24-month period prior to the survey the LIS identified seven victims in two communities. Of the seven casualties, three were male and four were female. Five survived the incident. The casualties were predominantly between four and 14 years old. At the time of the incident the victims were involved in collecting wood or water or playing. The five survivors suffered bodily wounds but not loss of limb.

TABLE 81

PROFILE OF CASUALTIES

Recent Victims, by Gender Recent Victims, by Age Gender Killed Survived Total Age Injured Killed Total Percentage Male 0 3 3 5 to 14 2 1 3 43% Female 2 2 4 0 to 5 0 1 1 14% Total 2 5 7 15 to 29 0 1 1 14% 30 to 44 1 0 1 14% Activity at the Time of the Incident, by Gender 45 to 59 1 0 1 14% Activity Male Female Total Percentage 60 and over 0 0 0 0% Playing 3 1 4 57% Unknown 0 0 0 0% Collecting wood/water 0 3 3 43% Total 4 3 7 100% Farming 0 0 0 0% Herding 0 0 0 0% Type of Wound, by Gender Housework 0 0 0 0% Wound Male Female Total Percentage Military 0 0 0 0% Other Wound 3 2 5 71% Office Work 0 0 0 0% Fatality 0 2 2 29% Other 0 0 0 0% Amputation 0 0 0 0% Trade 0 0 0 0% Loss of Sight 0 0 0 0% Unknown 0 0 0 0% Unknown Wound 0 0 0 0% 100%

Analysis of Economic Blockage Impacts

Figure 21 shows that almost 50% of the impacted communities reported blocked access to housing areas and 50% reported blocked access to rain-fed agricultural areas, while the lowest reported blockage was other infrastructure (medical facility). However, of the 192 blockages reported, the

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 101

community informants in 85 occasions (44%) stated that sufficient alternatives were available such that the direct impact on the community was somewhat mitigated.

FIGURE 21 Retrofit Results

SHAS BLOCKINGBLOCKING RESOURCES,RESOURCES, WITHWITH ANDAND WITHOUT SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES The LIS was tasked with verifying 197 DAs and 54 SHAs Reported to Have Alternatives to Blockage minefields in Southern Resource Blocked SHAs Reported to Block Access to Resources

40 Kordofan from the UNMAO Housing 48 32 database. Table 82 shows Rain-fed Cropland 38 29 that 123 DAs (62%) no longer Migratory Pasture 37 13 exist as confirmed by local Roads 29 8 community leaders because Drinking Water 12 7 the area had either been Non-Agricultural Land 12 0 previously cleared or was no Fixed Pasture 2 0 longer considered to contain Non-Drinking Water 1 0 mines. Further, 39 DAs Other Infrastructure 1 0 matched SHAs in the Irrigated Cropland 0 communities surveyed and 0102030 40 50 Number of SHAs with Reports of Blockage six DAs were found but could

not be linked to a community;

TABLE 82 seven DAs were identified as UXO spot clearance tasks. RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREA RECORDS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE Table 83 shows the LIS Dangerous Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Areas Percentage verified that 47 of the 54 Found not to exist or to have been cleared 123 62% minefields in the UNMAO Found to match an LIS SHAs 39 20% database still exist and none Not visited due to inaccessibility 22 11% have been cleared. Found to match an LIS UXO Spot Clearance site 7 4% Found not linked to an LIS community 6 3% Past Mine Action Not located due to missing GPS coordinates 0 0% Mine action has been ongoing Total Dangerous Area database records in state 197 100% in Southern Kordofan since 2003. Not surprisingly, the impacted communities in TABLE 83 Southern Kordofan reported RETROFIT OF THE MINEFIELD RECORDS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE more mine action activities than any other state. As Table Minefield Status of Minefield Records in UNMAO Database Records Percentage 84 indicates, of the 48 mine Found to match an LIS SHAs 47 87% impacted communities in Not visited 5 9% Southern Kordofan, 39 or 81% Found not to exist 1 2% reported receiving recent Found to be inaccessibility 1 2% Mine Risk Education (MRE). Found clearance had been completed 0 0% There was some marking and Found to match an LIS UXO Spot Clearance site 0 0% survey conducted in 21 Total Minefield database records in state 54 100% communities in Southern Kordofan.

102 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Southern Kordofan

TABLE 84

COMMUNITIES REPORTING PAST MINE ACTION, BY ACTIVITY TYPE

Communities Reporting Percentage of the 48 Mine Action Activity Such Activity in the Past Impacted Communities Mine Risk Education 39 81% Official Clearance 23 48% Marking or Fencing 21 44% Technical Survey 21 44% Local Clearance Efforts 0 0%

Survey Coverage

Figure 22 shows that the Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) identified 1,145 communities in the state. Of these 1,145 communities, 369 were suspected of being mine-affected and survey visits were attempted. Four possibly impacted communities could not be surveyed due principally to security reasons while an additional 75 possibly impacted communities were either found abandoned or could not be located in the vicinity. Another 22 communities were sampled from the POC list of 776 communities not suspected of having a landmine problem. This sampling for false negatives (FNS) is a standard quality assurance process discussed in Annex XI. Of these 22 visits, one additional impacted community was discovered, 3 were inaccessible to the survey teams, and the other 18 communities were found not to be impacted. Table 85 lists the 48 impacted communities in Southern Kordofan.

FIGURE 22

SURVEY COVERAGE

Total Communities 1,145

Preliminary Opinion Collection Not Suspected Suspected Affected Affected 369 776

Selected for FNS 22

Inaccessible 4 Abandoned 38 Inaccessible Not Located 37 3 Field Survey False Positives True Negatives Findings 243 18

True Positives False Negatives 47 1 Impacted Communities 48

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 103

TABLE 85

LIST OF 48 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN KORDOFAN STATE

Locality Administrative Unit Community Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims 1 Abu Giebieha Gidiet Abu Norwara Gireed 3 1 0 2 Dileng AlKurgol Kelandi 7 4 0 3 Dalami Abrie 3 3 0 4 Dalami Al Gnei 5 3 0 5 Dalami Alabied 4 1 0 6 Dalami Dalami 4 2 0 7 Dalami Diri 3 1 0 8 Dalami Kadbur 3 1 0 9 Dalami Sabat 3 1 0 10 Dalami Um Alhamam 3 1 0 11 Dalami Um bartaboo 4 2 0 12 Habeila Fayoo 4 1 0 13 Kurgol Julud 7 4 0 14 Salara Katala 4 5 0 15 Salara Wali 14 10 4 16 Kadugli Al Boram Al Dar 6 1 0 17 Al Boram Angoolo 4 1 0 18 Al Boram Kololo 4 1 0 19 Al Boram Shat El Sufaya 4 1 0 20 Al Boram Trogi 6 3 0 21 Al Maddeina Alsmaa 5 1 0 22 Al Refie Algarbie Tona 6 1 0 23 AlBoram ALDabakaiya 6 3 0 24 Alrefie Algarbi Abu Sonoon 5 1 0 25 Alrefie Algarbi Al Mashaiesh 3 1 0 26 Boram Al Boram 7 6 0 27 Boram Al Tiess 12 2 3 28 Boram Alrieka 5 2 0 29 Boram Famma 5 3 0 30 Boram Tabaina 6 4 0 31 Heiban Alazrag 4 1 0 32 Heiban Alloubi 3 1 0 33 Heiban Kalkada 3 2 0 34 Heiban Koyia 4 1 0 35 Heiban Tagouro 4 1 0 36 Heiban Tambiera 5 3 0 37 Heiban Tira Mandi 3 1 0 38 Heiban Um Dar Dur 3 1 0 39 Meddina Bilynga 5 1 0 40 Meddina Katsha 5 3 0 41 Meddina Krongo 6 5 0 42 Meddina Miri Juwa 3 1 0 43 Meddina Tokko 4 1 0 44 Um Durein Delibia 3 1 0 45 Um Durein Elhemire 5 1 0 46 Um Durein Ugob 3 1 0 47 Um Durein Um Durain 4 1 0 48 Um Durein Um Serdiba 3 1 0 Total n/a 98 7

104 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Unity

1 1 Low 105 Impact Impact 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 60% 100% Percentage 0 0 Impact Impact Medium Medium

5 2 0 0 3 0 0 bomas Areas 0 0 High Dangerous Impact Impact TABLE 86 TABLE in this state. TABLE 87 TABLE COMMUNITIES, BY COUNTY AND IMPACT LEVEL ministrative reorganization in 1994, REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

earance tasks in two locations. Mines earance tasks in two Total 1 County Total Rubkotna 1 inhabited by the Nuer ethnic group in majority inhabited by the Nuer ethnic group in ties were reported in the 24 months prior to the ties were reported RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE UNMAO THE IN AREAS DANGEROUS THE OF RETROFIT SAC during the survey SAC during the survey Found to match an LIS SHAs SHAs Found to match an LIS Found not linked to an LIS community Found to match an LIS UXO Spot Clearance site Not located due to missing GPS coordinates Total Area database records in state Dangerous Found not to exist or to have been cleared Not visited due to inaccessibility Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – is the capital. Prior to an ad

Bentiu e was conducted during the period February-April 2008 and identified the period February-April 2008 e was conducted during state, the LIS survey was ct, a community with two spected Hazard Areas (SHAs)

Unity was part of Upper Nile state. Unity is Unity Unity was part of Upper Nile state. and secondly by the Dinka ethnic group. Rubkotna, Unity is comprised of nine counties (Mayom, Divisions: Administrative Mayendit and Payinjiar) and 329 Parieng, Leer, Guit, Koch, Abeimnom, (communities). located in South Sudan. is Retrofit Results Results Retrofit The LIS was tasked with verifying five DAs in Unity state from the UNMAO database. Table 87 shows that three of the DAs no longer exist as confirmed by local community leaders because the area had either been previously cleared or was no longer considered to contain mines and two were not accessible at the time the survey was conducted.

Impact on Communities and Su Of the 329 communities in the community is SHAs. As Map 24 shows the impacted near the main town of Bentiu. conducted in 87 communities and found that only one conducted in 87 communities and found 86 shows community impacted by landmines. Table the community has low impa SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Unity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unity stat The LIS survey of the community with two SHAs. No casual one mine impacted the implementing partner for Advisory Group was Unity Unity cl survey teams recorded nine UXO spot the survey. In addition,

MAP 24

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN UNITY STATE

Survey Coverage

Figure 23 shows that the Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) identified 121 communities in Unity as suspected of being mine-affected out of the 329 communities in the state. The survey teams attempted to visit all 121 communities but 47 were either inaccessible (32 due to a large snake infested swamp), found abandoned, or unable to be located. Another 44 communities were sampled from the POC list of 208 communities not suspected of having a landmine problem. This sampling for false negatives (FNS) is a standard quality assurance process discussed in Annex XI. Of these 22 visits, no visit uncovered an

106 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Unity

107

Field

0 0 Opinion Collection Survey Findings Preliminary

Recent Victims 3 2 2 6 SHAs

REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

0 13 22

Affected 208 Not Suspected True Negatives True False Negatives False Selected for FNS Selected for 3 n/a Inaccessible Abandoned Survey

Impact Score d not impacted and nine were either inaccessible either inaccessible and nine were d not impacted FIGURE 23 FIGURE TABLE 88 TABLE 1 SURVEY COVERAGE

Impacted the single impacted community in Unity. impacted community the single

Communities 329 LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Total Communities Total (Community) Kali Balak Kali 14 1 32 LIST OF THE SINGLE IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN UNITY STATE UNITY IN COMMUNITIES IMPACTED SINGLE THE OF LIST Bentiu Payam Boma

73 1 121 True Positives True False Positives False Suspected Affected Inaccessible Abandoned Survey Not Located Total County 1 Rubkotna

or found to be abandoned. Table 88 lists be abandoned. Table or found to impacted community while 13 communities were foun communities were community while 13 impacted

108 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Upper Nile

3 7 10 Low Impact Impact 109 1 1 0 Impact Impact Medium Medium

0 0 0 High Impact Impact ey was suspended TABLE 89 TABLE ed as a result of the ed as a result of the verage in Upper Nile The LIS did not record any

SHAs were reported with a total COMMUNITIES, BY COUNTY AND IMPACT LEVEL Juba and the surv REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

river flows through the state. County Total Malakal 4 Malut 7 Total 11 shoda, Al renk, Nasir, Wurang,

d population is approximately 1,300,000 (2000). d population is approximately 1,300,000

of data collection, including verifying 76 DAs from of data collection, including verifying restricted the survey to four of the 12 counties. restricted the survey eyed. When the rainy season began in mid May eyed. When the rainy season began in White Nile unties could not be survey unties could not be ate suspected to be mine-affected, the LIS conducted down leaving survey co and the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) and the United Nations ational (HI) was the implementing partner for SAC in ational (HI) was the Table 89, only eleven impacted communities were LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – the survey were reported. Twelve to be evacuated from Malakal to to be evacuated from

. In addition, five UXO spot clearance tasks in three communities were . In addition, five UXO spot clearance 2 es. The LIS did not identify is the capital of the state. The

Malakal Upper Nile is subdivided into 12 counties: Malakal, Upper Nile is subdivided into 12 counties: Divisions: Administrative Fa Maiwut, Longechuk, Maaban, Malut, Baliet, Panyikang, and Manyo. state is in southeastern Sudan. The estimate

The total number of returnees for Upper Nile in the Over a three week period the LIS identified 11 impacted communities in four counties. No 11 impacted Over a three week period the LIS identified this state. The survey teams had this state. The survey and non-state armed groups that erupted on 24 February 2009 in groups that erupted on 24 February Sudan army and non-state armed fighting between South of the state. Handicap Intern Malakal, the capital impacted communities is an estimated 7,612 people. When the survey is completed in the eight remaining counties it is expected the number of IDPs to increase. As illustrated on Map 25, the LIS identified 11 impacted communities, four around the capital and the rest to the north of the capital. There are five UXO spot clearance tasks in the surveyed counti Impact on Communities Communities Impact on Of the 339 communities in the four counties in the st survey visits to 50 communities. As shown in SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Upper Nile identified and they are located in the two counties of Malakal and Malut. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY able to December 2008 - May 2009 but was not State was scheduled for the period The LIS in Upper Nile this period. Eight of the 12 co be completed during UN planes resumed flights until early April when The outbreak of violence issued security clearances. Upper Nile Upper were not surv The 76 DAs from the UNMAO database survey shut and road travel became impossible the in Upper Nile. UNMAO, is needed to complete the survey casualties in the 24 months prior to incomplete. SAC estimates a minimum of two months incomplete. SAC estimates a minimum high-impacted communities, but did identify one medium-impacted and ten low-impacted communities. found. estimated area of 571,263 m

MAP 25

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN UPPER NILE STATE

any recent victims related to landmines or UXOs within the 24-month period prior to the survey in these 11 communities.

Survey Coverage

Figure 24 shows that the Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) identified a total of 339 communities in the four counties surveyed. The local authorities declared Al Renk county impact free prior to the survey. Of these 339 communities, 129 were suspected to be mine-affected and visits were planned. A high number of 80 communities were not accessible during the survey period for reasons of security. Another 22 communities were sampled from the POC list of 210 communities not suspected of having a

110 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Upper Nile

111

Field

Opinion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Collection Survey Findings Preliminary

Recent Victims Recent Victims 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 SHAs SHAs

0 4 22 18

3 5 6 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 n/a Affected REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

Inaccessible 210 Not Suspected True Negatives True Impact Score Impact Score False Negatives False Selected for FNS Selected for

TIES IN UPPER NILE STATE ties were not accessible to the survey teams and survey teams and not accessible to the ties were (FNS) is a standard quality assurance process standard quality assurance (FNS) is a TABLE 90 TABLE (Community) (Community) FIGURE 24 FIGURE Ultimately, 11 impacted communities were identified were identified 11 impacted communities Ultimately, Matar Luakat 11 SURVEY COVERAGE

pacted communities in the Upper Nile state. in the Upper pacted communities Hai Hai Gonia Panhomdit Dinka Shuku Gikaku Pariak Malek Aweec Aweec Wunanahiany Wunanahiany Thiangrial Impacted

Communities 339 Total Communities Total LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – dit 3 80 LIST OF 11 IMPACTED COMMUNI

Southern Payam Panhom dit Payam Boma Bimachuok Northern Southern Payam

11 35 129 True Positives True False Positives False Security Issues Not Located Suspected Affected Inaccessible: Malakal Malut 1 2 Northern 3 4 5 6 Bimachuok 7 Galdora 8 Malut 9 Paluoch 10 Panhom 11 Total County

landmine problem. This sampling for false negatives problem. This sampling landmine 22 visits, 18 communi in Annex XI. Of these discussed were found. impacted communities no additional 90 lists the 11 im Nile state. Table in the Upper

112 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Warrab

3 1 4

SHAs 113 1 1 2 Low Impact is the , BY COUNTY S 0 1 1 Warrab Impact Medium Medium

ey in this state. state. in this ey TABLE 91 TABLE 0 0 0 High High Impact Communities, by Impact Level bomas (communities). Total Total IMPACTED COMMUNITIES AND SHA onth period prior to the survey. REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

Gogrial 2 Tonj 1 Total 3 County

. Tonj is the largest city and

ner for SAC during the surv

at 92 dangerous areas (DAs) in its database be at 92 dangerous areas he state. One casualty in the 24 months prior to he state. One casualty Dinka ted survey visits to 46 communities. Table 91 and ted survey visits to 46 communities. Table existing, 35 were identified as UXO spot clearance existing, 35 were identified ry-April 2008 and identified three mine impacted ry-April 2008 and identified LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY –

d one recent victim within the 24-m

three impacted communities four SHAs were found and 28 UXO spot four SHAs were found and 28 three impacted communities , an ethnic subgroup of the survive the incident. d Suspected Hazard Areas Rek

capital. Other main cities are Gogrial, Kuajok, and Thiet. capital. Other main cities are Gogrial, Warrab has six counties and 138 Divisions: Administrative ONS ON SHA LOCATIONS AND IMPACT AND SHA LOCATIONS ON ONS is home to the , Map 26 show Warrab was found to have three impacted communities with four SHAs in the northwest three impacted Map 26 show Warrab was found to have part of the state. The LIS identifie verified. As a result 33 were nullified as no longer verified. As a result the survey. The remaining 15 were identified in the location of the SHAs tasks and 12 matched delayed for three months because of process was coordinates. The survey inaccessible or lacked implementing part floods. Mines Advisory Group was the LIS conduc Of the 138 communities in the state, the Impact on Communities an Communities Impact on the survey was identified. In the the survey was identified. identified. UNMAO requested th clearance tasks were Background Warrab SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY was conducted Februa The LIS survey of Warrab out of the 138 communities in t communities in Warrab Warrab Warrab

The male casualty did not FOR EXAMPLE AS AN TRAINING STAFF USED DURING MAP SKETCH COMMUNITY SAMPLE DISCUSSI SURVEY

MAP 26

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN WARRAB STATE

Retrofit Results

UNMAO requested that 92 DAs in its database be verified. Table 92 shows that 33 no longer exist as confirmed by local community leaders because they either previously had been cleared or otherwise were not considered to contain landmines. Further, the table shows that 12 matched SHAs in the communities surveyed, five were found but could not be linked to a community, 35 were identified as UXO spot clearance; six were located in areas that were inaccessible to the survey teams due to insecurity or difficult terrain or not retrofitted, one had incorrect coordinates or no coordinates at all.

114 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Warrab

115

Field

Opinion Collection Survey Findings 7% 5% 1% Preliminary 13% 38% 36%

100% Percentage

6 5 1 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 12 35 33 92

Areas 0 10 12 22

Dangerous Affected 100 Not Suspected Inaccessible Inaccessible True Negatives True False Negatives False Selected for FNS Selected for es in the state. The survey teams attempted to es in the state. The survey teams attempted

e to security concerns or because of the difficult e to security concerns or because of the the POC list of 100 communities not suspected of the POC list of 100 communities not suspected negatives (FNS) is a standard quality assurance negatives (FNS) is a standard quality assurance ction (POC) identified 38 communities in Warrab as ction (POC) identified 38 communities Ultimately, three impacted communities were Ultimately, three impacted communities ts, twelve surveys could not be conducted and no ts, twelve surveys could not be conducted TABLE 92 TABLE FIGURE 25 FIGURE cted communities in the Warrab state. cted communities in the Warrab state. 3 SURVEY COVERAGE

Impacted

Communities 138 LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Total Communities Total RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE DATABASE UNMAO THE IN AREAS DANGEROUS THE OF RETROFIT 2

3 33 Inaccessible Inaccessible 38 True Positives True False Positives False Suspected Affected

Found to match an LIS UXO Spot Clearance site UXO Found to match an LIS have been cleared Found not to exist or to SHAs Found to match an LIS Not visited due to inaccessibility LIS community Found not linked to an GPS coordinates Not located due to missing records in state Total Dangerous Area database Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Status of Dangerous Areas Survey Coverage

possibly impacted by landmines from the 138 communiti possibly impacted by landmines from inaccessible du visit these 38 communities but two were sampled from terrain. Another 22 communities were Figure 25 shows that the Preliminary Opinion Colle Figure 25 shows that the Preliminary Opinion for false having a landmine problem. This sampling identified. additional impacted communities were 3 impa identified in Warrab. Table 93 lists the process discussed in Annex XI. Of these 22 visi process discussed in Annex XI. Of these

TABLE 93

LIST OF 3 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN WARRAB STATE

County Payam Boma (Community) Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims 1 Gogrial Akon South Agal 4 1 0 2 Gogrial Gogrial 8 2 1 3 Tonj Tonj Tonj 5 1 0 Total n/a 4 1

116 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Western Bahr El Ghazal

117 7 2 1 10 7 1 1 5 SHAs Low Impact Impact

2 0 0 2 Impact Impact Medium Medium Impacted Impacted Communities 0 0 0 0 High Impact Impact XX 7 XX 1 XX 1 XX 9 bomas (communities) in . Both casualties were . Both casualties were TABLE 94 TABLE 180 TABLE 95 TABLE 1 Expected Number of IDPs Number REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

rders the Central African Republic to the rders the Central African Republic to COMMUNITIES, BY COUNTY AND IMPACT LEVEL EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES, BY COUNTY BY COUNTY RETURNEES, OF EXPECTED NUMBER the UNMAO database and found that 64 no longer the UNMAO database County Total 7 Wau Jur River Raja 1 Total 9 County Wau 11,640 Wau Raja 600 Jur River Total 12,420 identified 10 SHAs and 14 UXO spot clearance tasks. identified 10 SHAs n Bahr El Ghazal. Mines Advisory Group was the n Bahr El Ghazal. Mines Advisory Group months prior to the survey months prior to the onducted during the period September 2007-January onducted during the

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – the survey in this state.

is located to the south of Darfur and bo is the capital.

west. Wau There are three counties and 151 Divisions: Administrative Western Bahr El Ghazal. Table 95 shows that an estimated 12,420 children under 15 years of age and both were killed. An estimated 12,420 people are expected to estimated 12,420 people are expected of age and both were killed. An children under 15 years in Wester return to the mine impacted communities implementing partner for SAC during returnees are expected in the impacted communities in Wau, Raja and Jur River counties. Wau County is expected to receive 94% of the total. Communities Impact on Of the 151 bomas (communities) in the state, the LIS conducted survey visits to 61 communities. Table 94 shows that Western Bahr El Ghazal was found to have nine mine impacted communities. In the three impacted counties, seven communities have low impact and two have medium impact. Map 27 below illustrates their geographic distribution. Almost all of the impacted communities are on the eastern side of the state near Wau, an area of intense fighting during the war. SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Bahr El Ghazal Western EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bahr El Ghazal was c The LIS survey in Western Western Bahr El Ghazal El Ghazal Bahr Western in the state. Of 151 communities surveyed nine mine-impacted communities from 2008 and identified to have a high impact, two are communities, none of them were determined these nine impacted are low impact. In total, the LIS medium, and seven 133 Dangerous Areas (DAs) from The LIS also verified existed. There were two casualties from the 24 existed. There were

MAP 27

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN WESTERN BAHR EL GHAZAL STATE

Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs)

Figure 26 indicates the 10 SHAs identified in the LIS are estimated to be about 302,200 m2 in total extent, or an average of approximately 30,000 m2 per SHA. The SHAs in medium impacted communities total 180,000 m2 and the SHAs in low impacted communities measure 122,200 m2.

FIGURE 26

ESTIMATED SIZE OF SHAS, BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL

Total Est. Area Low Impact 302,200 sq m 122,200 sq m 40%

Medium Impact 180,000 sq m 60%

118 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Western Bahr El Ghazal

119 9% 9% 0% 1% 33% 48% 100%

0% 33% 89% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% Percentage of the 9

0 1 Percentage 12 44 12 64 Impacted Communities 133 Areas Percentage Dangerous 0 2 Total ACTION, BY ACTIVITY TYPE 0 0 3 0 8 3 3 Killed

TABLE 98 TABLE TABLE 97 TABLE doing when the incident occurred. the incident occurred. doing when 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN Communities Reporting Such Activity in the Past the Such Activity in

at fencing or marking occurred in eight of the nine nine the of eight at fencing or marking occurred in Recent Victims, by Age Injured AgeInjured 60 and over Unknown Total 0 45 to 59 30 to 44 0 to 5 5 to 14 15 to 29 COMMUNITIES REPORTING PAST MINE RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREA RECORDS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE

TABLE 96 TABLE Not visited due to inaccessibility Not visited due to inaccessibility SHAs Found to match an LIS Spot Clearance site UXO Found to match an LIS Not located due to missing GPS coordinates Found not linked to an LIS community Total Area database records in state Dangerous Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database Found not to exist or to have been cleared

PROFILE OF CASUALTIES

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Marking or Fencing Mine Risk Education Clearance Official Technical Survey Local Clearance Efforts Mine Action Activity 100% 100% Percentage

2 2 0 2 2 Total Total is not known what the children were what the children is not known

0 0 0 0 0

Female insecurity or Killed Survived Total Male 2 Female 0 Total 2 Activity at the Time of the Incident, by Gender Recent Victims, by Gender Gender Total 2 Activity Male Unknown 2 Figure 27 shows that the Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) identified 55 communities in Western Bahr El Ghazal from Survey Coverage impacted communities while MRE and clearance was reported in three impacted communities. was reported clearance impacted communities while MRE and From Table 97, the communities surveyed reported th From Table 97, the communities surveyed Results Retrofit The LIS was tasked with verifying 133 DAs from the UNMAO database in Western Bahr El Ghazal. Table 98 shows that 64 DAs no longer exist as confirmed by local community leaders because they were either cleared or they could not be located and 44 were not accessible to the survey teams due to Past Mine Action difficult terrain. Twelve DAs matched SHAs in the communities surveyed and 12 were identified as UXO spot clearance tasks. One of the DAs had no coordinates. Casualties Casualties in the 24 in a mine incident of age were killed between 5-14 years in Table 96, two boys As shown It to the survey. months prior

the 151 communities in the state that were suspected to be mine-affected. The survey teams attempted to visit these 55 communities but eleven were either inaccessible or found to be abandoned. Another 20 communities were sampled from the POC list of 96 communities not suspected of having a landmine problem. This sampling for false negatives (FNS) is a standard quality assurance process discussed in Annex XI. Of these 20 visits, one visit uncovered an impacted community while the other 16 communities were found not impacted and three more were not accessible to the survey teams. Ultimately, nine impacted communities were identified. Table 99 lists the nine impacted communities in Western Bahr El Ghazal.

FIGURE 27

SURVEY COVERAGE

Total Communities 151

Preliminary Opinion Collection Not Suspected Suspected Affected Affected 55 96

Selected for FNS 20

Inaccessible 8 Inaccessible Survey Abandoned 3 3

Field Survey False Positives True Negatives Findings 36 16

True Positives False Negatives 8 1 Impacted Communities 9

TABLE 99

LIST OF 9 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN WESTERN BAHR EL GHAZAL STATE

County Payam Boma (Community) Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims 1 Jur River Rocroc Dong Wad Alelo 3 1 0 2 Raja Diem Zubeir Diem Zubeir 3 2 0 3 Wau Bagari Farajalla 4 1 0 4 Bazia Tiriga 4 1 0 5 Bessilia Bessilia 3 1 0 6 Bessilia Jabel Kawaja 3 1 0 7 Kuajiena Kuajiena 7 1 2 8 Udici Atido II 6 1 0 9 Udici Udichi 3 1 0 Total n/a 10 2

120 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Western Equatoria

6 7 7 7 7 HA 16 1 121 61 61 4 4 4 4 3 3 pa 11 11 SHAs S s Low Low Im ct Impact Impact ium ium 0 0 1 1 5 5 4 4 pa un 4 4 5 5 7 7 16 16 Im ct Impact Impact Med Medium Medium Impacted Impacted Impacted Impacted

Communities Comm ities . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pa High High Im ct Impact Impact TABLE 100 TABLE 100 TABLE TABLE 101 TABLE 101 TABLE Yambio ber of ID ber 20,900 20,900 20,900 20,900 Expected Expected ta 4 4 March 2008, it can be said that March 2008, it can Num Ps Number of IDPs Number COMMUNITIES, BY COUNTY AND IMPACT LEVEL EXPECTED NUMBER OF RETURNEES, BY COUNTY BY COUNTY RETURNEES, OF EXPECTED NUMBER BY COUNTY RETURNEES, OF EXPECTED NUMBER REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN COMMUNITIES, BY LOCALITY AND IMPACT LEVEL IMPACT AND BY LOCALITY COMMUNITIES,

he Democratic Republic of Congo with an he Democratic Republic of Congo with st, Nagero, Nzara, Tambura, and Yambio. st, Nagero, Nzara, Tambura, Maridi 7 County Total Locality To l Mundri 5 Mundri 5 Mundri East Mundri East Total 16 Total 16 Maridi 7 County Mundri East County Mundri East Maridi 14,367 Maridi 14,367 Mundri 11,410 Mundri 11,410 Total 46,677 Total 46,677 and 201 bomas (communities). with 16 of 201 communities impacted by mines. with 16 of 201 communities rding to local community leaders. In addition, 19 rding to local community ternally Displaced Persons (IDP’s) are expected to ternally Displaced The survey teams reported no casualties within the The survey teams reported high impacted, five are medium and 11 are low high impacted, five payams rified 91 Dangerous Areas (DAs) from the UNMAO rified 91 Dangerous 32 locations. Mines Advisory Group was the 32 locations. Mines Advisory Group was . LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – the survey in this state. conducted during the period January- conducted during the

test number of returnees

borders the Central Africa Republic and t borders the Central Africa Republic and estimated population of 360,000 (1983). The state’s capital is estimated population of 360,000 (1983). 10 counties: Ezzo, Western Equatoria is sub-divided into Divisions: Administrative We Ibba, Mvolo, Maridi, Mundri East, Mundri These are further divided into 49 The estimated number of returnees for Western with an estimated number of 35,267 people Impact on Communities Communities Impact on LIS Of the 201 communities in the state, the As Table conducted survey visits to 57 communities. 100 indicates Western Equatoria recorded five medium-impacted and 11 low-impacted communities. The 16 impacted communities are located in Mundri, Mundri East and Maridi counties in the far eastern part of the state. Map 28 depicts the geographical distribution of these communities. Equatoria in mine impacted communities is 46,677 people, which represents 7% of the estimated 679,018 returnees in mine impacted communities in Sudan. Table 101 indicates that Maridi and Mundri East are expecting the grea SCOPE OF THE LANDMINE PROBLEM Background Equatoria Western EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the state Based on the LIS survey Western Equatoria Equatoria Western

Western Equatoria has a moderate landmine problem Western Equatoria communities none of them are Of the 16 impacted impacted. There are 30 SHAs in the 16 communities. communities. 16 the in 30 SHAs impacted. There are the survey. An estimated 46,677 In 24 months prior to communities. The LIS ve return to the impacted database and found that 21 (23%) no longer exist acco database and found communities requested UXO spot clearance in communities requested UXO spot clearance implementing partner for SAC during

MAP 28

IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN WESTERN EQUATORIA STATE

Note: A community appearing outside of the state boundary is due to the inaccuracy of the boundary information used to produce this map.

Suspected Hazard Areas (SHAs)

Table 102 shows that half the impacted communities had only one SHA. This was the case for eight communities while another eight communities reported two or three SHAs.

As illustrated in Figure 28 the estimated area for the SHAs in Western Equatoria is 5.5 km2. The average size of the 30 SHAs is slightly less than 18,500 m2. The size of the low impacted communities is approximately 4.9 km2.

TABLE 102 FIGURE 28

SHAS PER COMMUNITY, BY FREQUENCY ESTIMATED SIZE OF SHAS, BY COMMUNITY IMPACT LEVEL

SHAs Per Number of Such Percentage of Medium Impact Total Est. Area Community Communities Total 605,678 sq m 5,534,278 sq m 1 8 50% 11% 2 2 12% 3 6 38% Total 16 100%

Casualties

The LIS did not identify any casualties within Low Impact 4,928,600 sq m the 24-month period prior to the survey. 89%

122 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

Western Equatoria

20 19 123 7% 0% 25% 16% 25% 26% 100% 0% 31% 63% 63% 19%

12 Percentage of the 16 Impacted Communities 6 0 23 23 15 91 24 Areas Percentage Dangerous SHAs Reported to Have Alternatives to Blockage SHAs Reported to Have Alternatives Resources SHAs Reported to Block Access to ACTION, BY ACTIVITY TYPE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES Number of SHAs with Reports of Blockage 0 5 3 4 10 10 FIGURE 29 FIGURE TABLE 103 TABLE 104 TABLE REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN

3 2 2 1 Communities Reporting Such Activity in the Past the Such Activity in 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 5 10 15 Equatoria. Table 104 shows that 24 no longer exist Equatoria. Table 104 shows that 24 no hey were either previously cleared or were no RETROFIT OF THE DANGEROUS AREAS IN THE UNMAO DATABASE UNMAO THE IN AREAS DANGEROUS THE OF RETROFIT Roads COMMUNITIES REPORTING PAST MINE BLOCKING RESOURCES, WITH AND BLOCKING RESOURCES, S Housing Resource Blocked SHA Fixed Pasture Fixed LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – Drinking Water Migratory Pasture Found not to exist or to have been cleared Status of Dangerous Areas in UNMAO Database SHAs Found to match an LIS Spot Clearance site UXO Found to match an LIS Not visited due to inaccessibility Found not linked to an LIS community Not located due to missing GPS coordinates Total Area database records in state Dangerous Rain-fed Cropland Irrigated Cropland Irrigated Other Infrastructure Non-Drinking Water on-Agricultural Land on-Agricultural Mine Action Activity Marking or Fencing Mine Risk Education Technical Survey Clearance Official Local Clearance Efforts N

Retrofit Results Results Retrofit in Western The LIS was tasked with verifying 91 DAs Past Mine Action Table 103 shows that marking or fencing and MRE were reported in 10 impacted communities and three reported clearance had occurred prior to the survey. as confirmed by local community leaders because t longer considered to contain mines while 23 matched SHAs in the communities surveyed. Another six were found but could not be linked to a community and 23 were identified as UXO spot clearance tasks. Fifteen DAs were located in areas that were inaccessible to the survey teams due to insecurity or difficult terrain. Figure 29 shows that 81% of Figure 29 Hazard the total Suspected blocked Areas reported 28% housing areas and of rain- reported blockage while fed agricultural areas, the lowest reported blockage was drinking the 43 water. However, of the blockages reported, on community informants that a three occasions stated sufficient alternative existed and therefore the direct impact on the community was somewhat mitigated. Analysis of Economic Blockage Impacts

Survey Coverage

Figure 30 shows that the Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) identified 54 communities suspected to be mine-affected out of a total of 201 communities in the state survey area. The survey teams attempted to visit these 54

FIGURE 30 communities but 15 were inaccessible SURVEY COVERAGE principally due to security concerns. Total Communities 201 Another 22 Preliminary Opinion communities were Collection Not Suspected sampled from the Suspected Affected Affected 54 147 POC list of 147 communities not

Selected for FNS suspected of having 22 a landmine problem. This Inaccessible Inaccessible 15 4 sampling for false

Field negatives (FNS) is a Survey False Positives True Negatives Findings standard quality 23 10 assurance process discussed in Annex True Positives False Negatives 16 0 XI. Of these 22 Impacted visits, four were Communities 16 inaccessible to the survey teams and no

additional impacted communities were TABLE 105 identified. LIST OF 16 IMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN WESTERN EQUATORIA STATE Ultimately, a total of 16 impacted County Payam Boma (Community) Impact Score SHAs Recent Victims 1 Maridi Mambe Eyira 4 1 0 communities were 2 Mambe Olo 3 1 0 identified. Table 3 Maridi Mboroko 4 3 0 105 lists the 16 4 Maridi Nagbaka 6 3 0 impacted 5 Maridi Town Boma 7 3 0 communities in 6 Ngamunde Eddi 6 3 0 Western Equatoria. 7 Ngamunde Kuwanga 6 2 0

8 Mundri Kediba Dosho 3 1 0 9 Kediba Kediba 7 3 0 10 Kediba Wandi 3 1 0 11 Mundri Mundri 5 1 0 12 Mvolo Kila 3 1 0 13 Mundri East Lozoh Lanyi 3 1 0 14 Lozoh Lui 4 3 0 15 Minga Iyeba 3 2 0 16 Minga Minga 4 1 0 Total n/a 30 0

124 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – PROFILES BY STATE

nnexes

Annexes

Annex I—Key Participants

he Landmine Impact Survey (LIS) in Sudan was the product of a collaborative effort involving the T participation of the following Sudanese governmental agencies, national and international NGOs, and the United Nations. ▬ Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) funded the first state survey in Eastern Equatoria. ▬ Handicap International (HI) is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) which works alongside people with disabilities offering them assistance and support in their efforts to become self-reliant. Handicap International works in the fields of emergency, rehabilitation, mine action, physical and mental health, inclusion, and rights and politics of disability. Since its creation it has operated in approximately 60 countries. It began operations in Sudan in 2006. ▬ JASMAR (formerly known as Sudan Association for Combating Landmines) is a Sudanese national NGO established in November 2001. JASMAR provided administrative support to SAC and MAG during the field work in Blue Nile, Kassala, Red Sea, Gadaref and Sennar states. ▬ Mines Advisory Group (MAG) is an international NGO that clears landmines and remnants of war worldwide. Since 1989 it has operated in 35 countries. It began operations in Sudan in 1998. MAG was SAC’s major implementing partner in Sudan. ▬ National Mine Action Authority (NMAA) was established in 2005 by a Presidential Decree. It is responsible for the coordination of mine action in Sudan. NMAA approves and endorses all national policies, regulations, and mine action plans. The authority also supervised the activities of the National Mine Action Office (NMAC) and the execution of its strategies. ▬ Survey Action Center (SAC) is the executing arm of the Survey Working Group. SAC is the primary organization responsible for coordinating, implementing, and providing technical support to, and raising funds for, Landmine Impact Surveys worldwide. UNMAO contracted SAC to be the executing agency for the LIS in Sudan and to provide financial and technical oversight, training, and responsibility for the final LIS report. A four-person SAC team provided overall supervision, monitoring, technical support and direction. SAC implemented the survey in two states and sub- contracted MAG (13) and HI (1) to implement the survey in 14 states. ▬ South Sudan De-mining Authority (SSDA) was formed in 2006 by a Presidential Decree. SSDA works with UNMAO and other government institutions to coordinate and facilitate mine action activities in Southern Sudan. ▬ United Nations Mine Action Office (UNMAO) coordinates, facilitates, and oversees all mine action activities in Sudan. UN Security Council Resolution 1590 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (the Naivasha Agreement) mandated UNMAO to coordinate, facilitate, accredit, and conduct quality assurance of all mine action activities in Sudan. UNMAO works with the National Mine Action Authority, the Southern Sudan Authority, the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) and other UN agencies, and national and international agencies in Sudan. ▬ United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) was created in 1997 as the UN focal point for mine action. UNMAS collaborates with 13 other UN departments, agencies, programs and raises funds to ensure a coordinated response to the problems of landmines and explosive remnants of war. UNMAO through UNMAS supported the Sudan LIS by providing a quality assurance monitor and raised most of the funds for the LIS in Sudan.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 127

128 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex II—Data Quality Management

he Sudan Landmine Impact Survey was guided by protocols established by the Survey Working T Group (SWG) (www.sac-na.org/resources_lisprotocols.html ). Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) were adopted to monitor each step of the survey process to ensure the methodology was uniformly applied by all survey teams in each state and the survey could be measured against a set of standards. The United Nations Mine Action Office (UNMAO) certified the data after the completion of each state. This approach permitted greater flexibility in applying corrective measures during the survey and ultimately enhanced the overall quality of the final product.

Quality assurance for the survey was two-fold. One, procedures were established that allowed for ongoing evaluation during the actual survey execution and the quality control procedures for data were designed to assess the accuracy and completeness of the product.

The Field Editor was the first person in the field to check the data received from the survey team. The Field Editor checked the questionnaires for completeness. If there were problems, the Field Editor communicated directly with the team for clarification and, if necessary, sent the team back to the community to correct the problem. Once the Field Editor was satisfied he or she sent the report to the Field Quality Control Desk. This was followed by a check from the implementing partner Field Quality Control Desk, who then sent it on to the implementing partner’s Quality Check Desk before being handed over to the SAC. The SAC Quality Control Desk checked the data before sending it to the SAC Data Management Section for an additional check and data entry.

Once the entry was completed, the data were transferred to the next level of quality control where the Data Processor would run queries to ensure the data was complete and matched the questionnaires. In the final step of the process the SAC Database Manager ran the IMSMA GIS functionality standard queries and the impact control queries, and queries to export the Master tables to an Excel format. After the confirmation from the Database Manager, the data were sent to UNMAO, who, in turn, would perform their own check before certifying the state data. The MOU between UNMAO and SAC allowed UNMAO 15 days to review the data. For each state the deadline was met and the data accepted. The following figure shows at every stage there is a feedback loop to send the report back one level for clarification and/or correction of error. The figure shows the complete QA continuum for the LIS in each Sudan state.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 129

QUALITY InternalASSURANCE CONTINUUMQuality ControlFOR THE LIS ContinuumIN EACH SUDAN STATE

130 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex III—Retrofitting the Database

nspired by the Landmine Impact Survey conducted in Afghanistan in 2003-2004, SAC recommended I to UNMAO that, in addition to the standard LIS, SAC also verify current information in the database, or “retrofit” as the process is known, the current information on dangerous areas. The retrofit in Sudan meant that every Dangerous Area (DA) or minefield already in the database at the time a state survey began would be verified on the ground by the field team. Due to the size of Sudan, SAC believed it was a unique opportunity for UNMAO to make the best use of LIS resources on the ground, which could possibly discount DAs that were no longer in existence.

It is widely believed that a retrofit survey is easier and takes less time than a normal LIS. It was believed that the only real issue and difficulty with retrofitting was working with imprecise coordinates while assuming all of the general background data on the communities associated with DAs was valid. The reality in Sudan was far different. In some cases, retrofitting turned out to be a complicated and time-consuming enterprise, notwithstanding it being the correct approach to the LIS. By the end of the survey in 16 states, SAC had reviewed 1,145 documents representing DAs from the UNMAO database to conduct the retrofit.

Ultimately, the Landmine Impact Survey in Sudan consisted of two distinct activities rolled into one process. The primary activity was the impact survey, conducted to the norms and procedures set forth in the protocols as approved by the Survey Working Group. The retrofit process, however, although a separate activity, was conducted by the LIS survey teams at the same time as the community visit in a given state. Throughout the process, it was imperative to ensure that the demands of retrofitting did not degrade the impact survey requirements. In order to ensure that all areas of the process were covered, a comprehensive set of implementation procedures were developed as well as an extensive quality assurance process. The five stages of the retrofit process were as follows:

STAGE ONE — REVIEW ▬ Obtain an official list of DA-Minefields from UNMAO to retrofit in a given state;

STAGE TWO — PLANNING ▬ Print the individual complete DA report; ▬ Map the DA on each payam operational map; ▬ Create county, payam, and community folders including DA data printouts, when applicable;

STAGE THREE — FIELDWORK ▬ Develop a payam survey plan according to the LIS master list; ▬ Coordinate DA retrofit activities with UNMAO field office; ▬ Conduct community LIS interviews and FNS including taking GPS readings at each site; ▬ When applicable, match the old DA report to new SHAs or UXO spots, or discount, if applicable, through community certification against specific DA report in the impact free community;

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 131

▬ Review all DA reports and send the retrofit team to the locations where DA did not match a SHA or a UXO spot. When applicable, confirm the existence of the DA report (typically a road) by means of visual verification or discount and certify with the closest community the not existing DA.

STAGE FOUR — QUALITY ASSURANCE ▬ Enter data into IMSMA at SAC office; ▬ Conduct QC on all data entry; ▬ Map GIS data to ensure coordinates, distances, etc. are correct; ▬ Verify all DA coordinates using the GIS functionality in IMSMA and reconfirm if the DA report actually matches a SHA, UXO spots or if the existing DA could not possibly impact a neighboring community; ▬ As necessary, send clean up team back in the payam, to conduct further investigation about unclear or possibly omitted DA reports;

STAGE FIVE — FINAL VERIFICATION ▬ Map the data; ▬ Hand over the data to UNMAO and review each individual DA report with the Chief of Information Management; ▬ Accept LIS / Retrofit data; ▬ UNMAO decides whether to discount the not existing DA in IMSMA; ▬ Substitute old DA reports matching a SHA with the complete set of LIS data in IMSMA.

132 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex IV—Project Timeline

he Sudan Landmine Impact Survey began in August 2005. Field work started in March 2006 and field T activities were completed in June 2009, with the final draft of the survey report being submitted to UNMAO in November 2009. The following timeline provides an overview of the LIS process from conception to completion.

PHASE 1: EASTERN EQUATORIA ▬ June and October 2003 – SAC Advance Survey Mission conducted ▬ August to October 2005 – Inception survey mission conducted ▬ October and November 2005 – SAC and South Sudan Demining Commission and National Mine Action Center signed MoU ▬ March 2006 – SAC and UNMAO signed MoU regarding data and IMSMA ▬ March 2006 – SAC and MAG signed contract ▬ December to March 2006 –Survey methodology developed ▬ March to May 2006 –LIS Field Office established in Kapoeta ▬ March to May 2006 – Staff recruited and trained ▬ March to May 2006 – Preliminary Opinion Collection (POC) conducted ▬ May to June 2006 –Pilot test, instrument and Operational plan revised ▬ June to August 2006 – Data collection and retrofit by MAG ▬ July to August 2006 – UNMAS Quality Assurance Monitor intervention ▬ August to September 2006 – Database and survey report completed

PHASE 2: BLUE NILE ▬ September to November 2006 –LIS Field Office established in Damazin ▬ October to November 2006 – Staff recruited and trained ▬ September to January 2006 – POC conducted ▬ November to December 2006 –Pilot test, instrument and Operational plan revised ▬ November to December 2006 – UNMAS Quality Assurance Monitor intervention ▬ December 2006 to February 2007 – Data collection and retrofit by MAG ▬ February to March 2007 – Database and survey report completed

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 133

PHASE 3: KASSALA, SENNAR, RED SEA, GADAREF, AND NORTHERN BAHR EL GHAZAL ▬ February 2007 –LIS Field Office established in Kassala and Wau ▬ February to March 2007 – Staff recruited and trained ▬ February to April 2007 – POC conducted ▬ April 2007 –Pilot test, instrument and Operational plan revised ▬ April 2007 to June 2007 – Data collection and retrofit by MAG ▬ July 2007 – Database and survey report completed

PHASE 4: WESTERN BAHR EL GHAZAL, AND LAKES ▬ July to August 2007 – Staff recruited and trained ▬ June to August 2007 – POC conducted ▬ September 2007 –Pilot test, instrument and Operational plan revised ▬ October 2007 to January 2008 – Data collection and retrofit by MAG

PHASE 5: CENTRAL EQUATORIA ▬ June to August 2007 –LIS Field Office established in Yei ▬ June to July 2007 – Staff recruited and trained ▬ June to August 2007 – POC conducted ▬ August 2007 –Pilot test, instrument and Operational plan revised ▬ October 2007 to January 2008 – Data collection and retrofit by MAG

PHASE 6: WESTERN EQUATORIA, WARRAP ,AND UNITY ▬ February 2008 –LIS Field Office established in Bentiu ▬ March to April 2008 – Staff recruited and trained ▬ November 2007 & February 2008 – POC conducted ▬ March to April 2008 –Pilot test, instrument and Operational plan revised ▬ January to June 2008 – Data collection and retrofit by MAG ▬ July to August 2007 – Database and survey report completed

134 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

PHASE 7: SOUTHERN KORDOFAN ▬ September 2008 –LIS Field Office established in Kadugli ▬ September to October 2008 – Staff recruited and trained ▬ April 2008 – POC conducted ▬ October to November 2008 – Pilot test, instrument and Operational plan revised ▬ November 2008 to January 2009 – Data collection and retrofit by SAC ▬ January to February 2009 – Database and survey report completed

PHASE 8: JONGLEI AND UPPER NILE ▬ December 2008 –SAC and Handicap International (HI) signed contract ▬ January and February 2009 –LIS Field Office established in Malakal and Jonglei ▬ February to March 2009 – Staff recruited and trained ▬ June 2008 and February 2009 – POC conducted ▬ February 2009 –Pilot test, instrument and Operational plan revised ▬ February to May 2009 – Data collection and retrofit by HI and SAC ▬ May to June 2009 – Database and survey reports completed ▬ June to August 2009 – SAC hand over equipment to UNMAO ▬ July 2009 – SAC team departs Sudan

REPORT PRODUCTION ▬ August to October 2009 – SAC drafts LIS final report ▬ November 2009 – UNMAO review and report production ▬ November to December 2009 – Final report printed and distributed

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 135

136 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex V—Administrative Structures

he Survey Action Center (SAC) provided overall management of the survey through a three-person T international advisory team which at the beginning of the survey was roaming from state to state in Sudan before establishing a fixed headquarters in Khartoum. The structure of the SAC advisory team changed as the project progressed. In 2005, the team consisted of a Program Director, Operations Manager and a GIS Database Officer. In 2008, the team added an Admin-Finance-Logistics Manager to support the direct implementation of the survey by SAC in Southern Kordofan and Jonglei states. Throughout the three year survey SAC regularly reported to UNMAO, SSDC and NMAC on matters of policy and project implementation, and provided regular progress reports and analysis to donors and stakeholders.

Under a sub-contract from SAC, Mines Advisory Group (MAG) implemented the survey in 13 of the impacted states while Handicap International (HI) surveyed Upper Nile State and SAC surveyed Southern Kordofan and Jonglei states. In their areas of responsibility, MAG and HI were responsible for the following administrative and financial aspects of the project: ▬ Purchase and management of equipment, ▬ Security assessments and management of risk, ▬ Recruitment and management of personnel, ▬ Vehicle rental contracts and maintenance, ▬ Financial management in Sudan, ▬ Interim financial reporting to SAC.

The implementing partners conducted the community interviews to the standards set out in the Survey Working group protocols and within the guidelines of National Technical Standards Guidelines agreed to in Sudan.

GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED NATIONS

UNMAO’s head quarters are located in Khartoum, with regional offices in Kadugli (with sub-offices Kassala and Damazin), Juba (with sub-offices Yei, Wau and Malakal), and El Fasher (with sub-offices El Geneina and Nyala). The sub-office in Yei has since closed. SAC coordinated with UNMAO headquarters, the South Sudan De-mining Authority (SSDA) and the National Mine Action Office (NMAC) regarding policy decisions and operational aspects. In the field, the LIS staff worked closely with the regional UNMAO, NMAC and SSDA sub-offices and when necessary, with the State Governor’s offices. Liaison Officers with the State Government assisted the LIS in unsecured or restricted areas, the POC process, local recruitment, and liaisons with all levels of administration and security.

SURVEY ORGANIZATION

The SAC Program Director was the person in Sudan in-charge of the survey. All survey activities were coordinated with UNMAO, the South Sudan Demining Commission, the National Mine Action Center and the implementing partners, Mines Advisory Group and Handicap International. Unlike Landmine Impact Surveys in other countries, in Sudan, because of the various local language groups and sometimes local hostility among the various ethnic groups, the survey was organized differently at the state level,

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 137

including hiring new survey teams for each state. As a result, SAC, MAG, and HI hired approximately 250 survey and support staff, representing all the major ethnic groups of Sudan. Ten training courses, pre-tests and pilot tests were conducted in ten locations covering 16 states. In total, SAC dedicated 150 days to training survey staff. Although the number of staff fluctuated during the survey as circumstances dictated, the staff structure indicated below is indicative for each state:

LIS HEADQUARTER ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

SAC Program Director

SAC Operation SAC Database Manager Officer

Operation Logistic Data Data Data Assistant Assistant Entry Entry Entry

FIELD WORK TEAM (MAG, SAC OR HI) STATE ORGANIZATION CHART

Survey Coordinator

Admin and OPS POC Logistic Assistant Team

Team Team Leader Leader

Field Team Field Team Editor One Editor One

Team Team Two Two

International Staff

National Senior staff

Field staff

138 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Over the course of the survey 1,152 people submitted applications for the key survey positions. Each state averaged 100 applications with Central Equatoria received 256 applications, the most for any of the 10 locations where applications were sought. From the 1,152 applications, 434 people were interviewed and approximately 200 were hired for the time needed to complete the survey in each state. Approximately 10% were women. It is largely recognized that the population in northern Sudan is better educated than the people in the south. For this reason, more women applied and more women were hired in states under the jurisdiction of Khartoum than in states under Juba. When the survey was completed their contract ended. Store keepers, security guards, cleaners and other support staff that were hired at survey base camps and offices and the drivers for the rented vehicles totaled approximately an additional 50 persons. The average number of personnel for the 10 different bases of the survey was 25.

At the beginning of the survey during the pilot testing stage, the SAC Data Quality Control and Data Base Unit were based at the MAG field camps in the surveyed state to ensure a close integration with the other LIS activities and MAG LIS team. In 2007, when the LIS entered into a multiple state approach, it was decided that the SAC operations would be based in a rented office in Khartoum, near UNMAO, to enhance coordination with stakeholders and the UNMAO database section.

UNITED NATIONS - QUALITY ASSURANCE

Prior to the LIS in Sudan the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) provided a Quality Assurance Monitor (QAM) to monitor and document the survey. The QAM report was critical in determining whether the UN should certify the survey. In Sudan UNMAS hired a QAM during the data collection in Eastern Equatoria and the pilot test in Blue Nile. A subsequent lack of funds at UNMAS prevented further QAM missions. UNMAO assumed the quality assurance monitoring process and certified the data collected in each state.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 139

140 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex VI—Team Leader Report

Landmine Impact Survey presents a unique opportunity to the mine action authorities in a recipient A country to determine precisely the true scale of the landmine problem and subsequently provides the most efficient tool to plan successful mine action interventions designed to reduce impact holistically.

As such, a survey is only useful if the data are actually being exploited by the intended users; otherwise the LIS would be no more and no less than a very expensive map. Certainly the LIS in Sudan encountered various challenges, but the end result is an accurate and useful product for stakeholders. By September 2009, 241 or (40%) of the Suspected Hazard Areas have been ‘’closed’’ by the UNMAO which reinforced the value and the usability of the LIS outputs. In addition, the LIS team also retrofitted 1,145 Dangerous Areas (DAs) from the national Mine Action database to keep it up to date and permitted to discount 430 DAs, the equivalent of approximately 50 km2, which are no longer in existence.

The state-by-state approach to surveying adopted by the LIS in Sudan reinforced the accuracy and completeness of the survey as well as the usability of the results throughout the eight implementation phases. Another key development was Sudan designating the LIS as one of the pillars of the National Strategic Framework which established completing the LIS as one of the objectives within the mine action sector. In this respect, the coordination and planning of the LIS with UNMAO, MAG and the national authorities was exemplary.

UNMAO also formed an integral part of the LIS quality control process which ensured a level of confidence in the results that the LIS was meeting the needs of all parties. However, although it could be argued that the failure to survey Darfur limits the completeness of the LIS– only the border with Chad is suspected to be mined - because of the insecurity prevailing in the region at the time did not permit the LIS survey teams to access the region, a rapid UXO spot survey as initially envisioned would have identified the numerous communities exposed to the risk of Explosive Remnants of War (ERW).

In the medium term, the LIS will continue to serve as the primary baseline data for mine action programming and prioritization. “Under the National Strategic Framework, the Sudan mine action sector is committed to clear all threats to high and medium impacted communities by 2011. Following the completion of the LIS, operational plans will be revised as appropriate to ensure that targets and obligations can be met in Sudan. Furthermore, the mine action sector intends to continue promoting the LIS data source as a useful tool for other development agencies/bodies in Sudan’’11. However, the LIS is also a snapshot of the situation at the time of the survey. For instance, the LIS in Sudan which started in 2006 is already more than three years old in some states and numerous new communities have been established and some could also be newly impacted by landmines. As well, new victims may have occurred in the impacted communities, which could modify their impact score and impact level. Therefore, a comprehensive Mine Action Information Management Surveillance System should be considered to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the Sudan database over the long term, protecting the initial investment in the LIS.

Damien Vallette d’Osia SAC Program Director Landmine Impact Survey- Sudan

11 Source: Sudan Mine Action Sector Multiyear Plan 2009-2012.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 141

142 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex VII—Survey Logistics

he LIS in Sudan involved 43 survey teams, had an average of seven 4x4 vehicles and two light 4x4 T trucks, and 13 motorbikes in order to conduct 1,760 community visits over a 37.5 month period. The table below shows how survey teams conducted the survey from nine different field bases (plus Khartoum headquarters). Clearly, some of the survey teams and all the vehicles/motorbikes were re- used throughout the survey as operations proceeded. Often operations were on-going simultaneously in multiple states.

SAC ensured staffing in all states at a level to ensure completion of the field work in about three months each. However, the field work in Central Equatoria and Western Bahr El Ghazal states, where the Yei and Wau bases are located, took more than six months to complete because of excessive flooding. SAC was the implementing organization operating from the Kadugli and Bor bases, HI operated from the Malakal base, and MAG was the implementing organization for operations conducted from all other base locations.

NINE DIFFERENT BASE FIELD LOCATIONS WERE USED TO CONDUCT THE 16-STATE SURVEYS

Number of Data Collection Base States Surveyed Number of Number of Number of Community Visits Duration Location From This Base Survey Teams Vehicles Motorbikes (1,760 total) (Months) Kapoeta Eastern Equatoria 6 7 6 220 3 Damazin Blue Nile 4 4 6 148 2.5 Sennar 1 2 0 23 1 Kassala Kassala 4 5 3 164 3 Gadaref 2 2 0 87 1.5 Red Sea 2 2 0 49 1.5 Wau Western Bahr El Ghazal 3 3 6 61 3

Northern Bahr El Ghazal 3 3 6 117 3 Lakes 3 3 6 52 3 Warrab 3 3 6 46 3 Yei Central Equatoria 4 5 7 196 6.5 Western Equatoria 4 4 7 57 2 Bentiu Unity 3 4 6 87 2.5 Kadugli Southern Kordofan 5 6 6 309 3 Bor Jonglei 3 3 3 94 2 Malakal Upper Nile 4 5 6 50 2.5

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 143

144 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex VIII—Methodology

he survey is guided by 10 protocols established by the Survey Working Group. These protocols are T available on the Survey Action Center website (www.sac-na.org/resources_lisprotocols.html ). While the SWG has revised these protocols since they were first established in 1999 the fundamental approach to all Landmine Impact Surveys has remained the same. The survey consisted of the following major tasks:

PRELIMINARY OPINION COLLECTION (POC)

Preliminary opinion collection (LIS Operational Protocol P02 – Preliminary Opinion Collection or POC) is a sequential process that begins at the national level and proceeds through each subsequent administrative layer, gaining detail until a comprehensive list is generated of all communities that are suspected to be impacted by landmines and/or unexploded ordnance (UXO). The final list is based on responses from individuals, national and international organizations, national and local authorities, and others with knowledge about possible landmine contamination in the states surveyed. Only these communities were surveyed. All other communities in Sudan are considered not to be impacted by landmines. Prior to the survey the government of Sudan had declared six states in northern Sudan as mine free. As an additional byproduct, the LIS rebuilt the entire gazetteer for the state with certification by each level of local authorities.

TRAINING

In order to bring continuity to the survey and retain the best staff from the other state surveys, five staff members were rehired to their positions of field editor, data entry and quality control/quality assurance. SAC conducted 10 two-week trainings for supervisors, field editors and data collectors during the eight phases of the survey. From March 2006 to June 2009 SAC and its implementing partners, Mines Advisory Group and Handicap International, employed more than 250 people.

PILOT TEST

SAC piloted the survey instruments over the course of three days at the end of each training session. The pilot survey tested planning assumptions, logistics, organization and the community interview skills taught during the training. If necessary, operational plans were then revised.

LIS INSTRUMENTS

LIS Operational Protocol P03 v 3 – Minimum Data Requirements and Questionnaire guides the development of the questionnaire used during the community interview. The questionnaire consists of a community module, a recent victim module and a suspected hazard module. The information collected during the field work was entered into a database using IMSMA software and then transferred to the UNMAO office in Khartoum.

The survey teams were provided with a UXO spot clearance form, which was used to document communities with unexploded ordnance that needed to be removed.

SAMPLING FOR FALSE NEGATIVES

The LIS is a census of all suspected mine-impacted communities. However, false negative sampling (FNS) is carried out in selected communities that are not suspected to be contaminated as a quality

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 145

check on the knowledge of the local POC informants. Communities selected for sampling are assumed to have no impact, i.e., they are “negative.” A false negative (FN), therefore, is a community believed to be free of landmines/UXO that is visited and found to be contaminated. Whenever a FN is discovered, all communities within a five-kilometer radius are also visited. If any of those additional visits discover another FN, then additional visits are made in a 5 km radius. The process continues until no more FNs are discovered. The process is covered by LIS Operational Protocol P07 v 3 – False Negative Sampling.

COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PROCESS

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and the LIS Operational Protocol P05 v 3 – Guidelines for Interviewers in the Community Visit guided the survey teams in their fieldwork. Field supervisors conducted pre-visits to the communities to be surveyed and made appointments for the following day. The supervisors encouraged the local leaders to find representative groups of people, including women, to participate in the community interviews. The next day a survey team arrived to conduct the surveys. Survey times averaged less than two hours.

In communities where only unexploded ordnance was found, the survey teams completed individual UXO spot clearance forms, which were then entered into IMSMA in the Danger Area section. If the survey teams, following the SOP for UXO, determined that a great deal of it was spread around a large area, a complete LIS was conducted in that community.

A local guide familiar with the landmine problem and the location of the SHA accompanied the survey teams to a safe viewing point to verify that the SHA was not in use. From a safe viewing point, the survey team sketched a map and took a GPS reading and a compass bearing that would later assist the technical survey process.

In addition to collecting data, the survey groups also gathered information to update the national gazetteer. The field supervisors were responsible for maintaining the official documentation and maps they had agreed on with the administrative unit or payam authorities in each locality or county. During the LIS, some communities were identified as new and others were confirmed as no longer existing, and some were identified as being in the wrong administrative unit or payam.

INTERNAL IDENTIFICATION CODING SYSTEM AND QUALITY CONTROL

Quality control (QC) systems were established at all stages of the survey process. QC begins with the collection of data during the community interview. Data collectors sign and date all interview forms. At the end of each day, field editors reviewed the questionnaires to see whether there was any evidence of inconsistent or recurrent problems with any particular data collection team. In addition, the survey manager and the SAC operations manager conducted monitoring visits to the field.

All survey documents were rechecked for accuracy, consistency, and completeness before the information was entered into the database. The field editor ensured that the questionnaires were completed correctly, and the survey manager signed off on each one before sending it to the Database Unit.

An internal quality assurance (QA) form was developed to evaluate the survey process and make sure the SWG protocols were being followed.

146 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex IX—Explanation of Scoring and Classification of Communities

coring and classifying mine-affected communities according to the severity of impacts is a central S element of the Landmine Impact Survey. A standardized impact scoring mechanism has been developed to provide a general assessment according to severity.

IMPACT SCORING ELEMENTS

The scoring system to categorize community impact takes into account the following three characteristics of the community: ▬ The types of ordnance reported, ▬ The types of livelihood and institutional areas to which mines are blocking access, ▬ The number of victims within the prior two years.

SCORING VARIABLES

The Survey Working Group creates the LIS Operational Protocol P08 v 3 – Impact Scoring and Community Classification12 that sets out the indicators and weights for contamination types and recent victims. The protocol gives the national authorities flexibility to adjust the weighing to reflect national realities. The National Mine Action Center and the South Sudan Demining Commission approve the following variables for calculating the impact scores for the LIS in Sudan, with one point given for each variable present. Each SHA may be reported to be blocking access to one or more of the following socio-economic resources.

12 See www.sac-na.org/pdf_text/lisprotocols/P08_Impact_Scoring_030415.pdf

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 147

APPROVED WEIGHTS FOR THE LIS IN SUDAN

CATEGORY BOUNDS AND CATEGORIZATION

The survey assigns four impact categories, no known mine problem, low impact, medium impact and high impact, to the following specified ranges of impact score:

THRESHOLD SCORES FOR THE IMPACT CATEGORIES

Score Impact Category 0 No known mine problem 1–5 Low

6–10 Medium 11 or more High

148 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex X—Abbreviations

ABBREVIATIONS

CHF Common Humanitarian Fund

IDP Internally Displaced Persons

FN False Negative

FP False Positive

HAC Humanitarian Aid Commission

HI Handicap International

IMSMA Information Management System for Mine Action

JASMAR Sudanese Association for Combating Landmines

LIS Landmine Impact Survey

MAG Mines Advisory Group

MRE Mine Risk Education

NMAA National Mine Action Authority

NMAC National Mine Action Center

POC Preliminary Opinion Collection

SAC Survey Action Center

SHA Suspected Hazard Area

SSDC South Sudan Demining Commission

SSRC Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission

SWG Survey Working Group

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNMAO United Nations Mine Action Office

UNMAS United Nations Mine Action Service

UNMIS United Nations Mission in Sudan

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 149

150 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex XI—Estimation of Prevalence of Mine-Affected Communities

Lawrence H. Moulton, Ph.D. / 26-September-2009

f the 1,702 communities suspected of being impacted by landmine/UXO during preliminary opinion O collection (POC), 1,019 communities were found by survey to have no landmine/UXO contamination, 287 were impacted by landmine/UXO (not counting communities with only spot UXO tasks), and the rest of the communities were determined inaccessible, as presented in Figure 31. A group of 3,743 communities were identified by POC as not being suspected of having landmine/UXO contamination and from this group 445 (12%) were evaluated in accordance with predetermined false negative sampling (FNS) procedures. If any sampled community was found to be affected, neighboring communities were also investigated according to LIS protocol.

ESTIMATION

This estimation procedure assumes that the strategy of going to neighboring communities is equivalent to the full procedure of investigating all communities in an area in which a sampled ‘not suspected’ community was found to be affected. Alternatively stated, it is assumed that because of an expected strong spatial correlation, this procedure would have found virtually all affected communities because of the small chance of having isolated affected communities being randomly (or even haphazardly) distributed throughout a district.

Because of the lack of detailed information on the activities and results following detection of a “false negative” community, this estimation is the only reasonable one that can be made from this survey. Field reports with sites adjacent to false negatives had already been investigated, and the SUMMARY sparseness of the settled areas, lend support for the assumptions made in this estimation. In this estimation, Prevalence the main source of variability is due to not having been Impacted communities / all communities able to survey 188 communities, which were suspected Estimate 6.4% according to POC, due to security and/or weather- Identification rate related concerns. Within each state, we take the Detected / all impacted communities observed proportion of false negative communities Best estimate 88.5% among the visited suspected communities, and apply it (95% confidence interval) (85.8%, 91.4%) to the non-visited communities in that state. The variance of the number of communities expected to be affected is Np(1-p), where N is the number not visited and p is the observed proportion affected among those visited. This yields an estimated 38.3 more affected communities, with a standard error of 5.4 communities.

The estimated proportion (prevalence) of affected communities is therefore (296+38.3)/5222 = 6.4%, where 5222 is the total number of actual communities in the 16 states under consideration. The identification rate is 296/(296+38.3) = 88.5%, with 95% confidence interval (85.8%, 91.4%). Note that this interval is narrow because of the assumptions made regarding investigation around determined false negative communities.

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 151

COMMENTS

Eight of the 16 states have substantial numbers of affected communities, and contain about 90% of all those affected. Thus, the states are a mixture of low and moderate-to-high prevalence areas, and the 6.4% overall prevalence should be viewed in this light. Due to the extensive community survey operations, it appears that close to 90% of affected communities have been found.

FIGURE 31

TOTAL SURVEY COVERAGE RESULTS FROM ALL 16-SURVEYED STATES

Total Communities 5,445

Preliminary Opinion Collection Not Suspected Suspected Affected Affected 1,702 3,743

Selected for FNS 526

Inaccessible 188 Abandoned 90 Inaccessible 66 Not Located 112 Abandoned 6 Not Existing 6 Not Located 9 Field Survey False Positives True Negatives Findings 1,019 436

True Positives False Negatives 287 9 Impacted Communities 296

152 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Annex XII—Survey Staffing

elow are the staffing levels for 10 locations where the LIS was based including Khartoum. During B the survey 1,152 people applied for jobs and 196 people were hired including 25 women. Note: For the women’s job titles the following coding has been used: FE = Field Editor, DC = Data Collector (Interviewer), and DEP = Data Entry Person.

Upper Nile State Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 120 Number of interviews conducted 26 Field survey staff per operational base 14 Number of women hired 0 Senior staff 2 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 7 Subtotal 23

Jonglei State Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 110 Number of interviews conducted 60 Field survey staff per operational base 12 Number of women hired 2 Job titles of women hired 2 DC Senior staff 1 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 7 Subtotal 20

Southern Kordofan State Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 90 Number of interviews conducted 60 Field survey staff per operational base 11 Number of women hired 4 Job titles of women hired 1FE, 3 DC Senior staff 6 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 5 Subtotal 22

Khartoum Headquarters Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 20 Number of interviews conducted 10 Field survey staff per operational base 5 Number of women hired 3 Job titles of women hired 3 DEP Senior staff 1 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 0 Subtotal 6

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 153

Eastern Equatoria State Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 90 Number of interviews conducted 60 Field survey staff per operational base 27 Number of women hired 2 Job titles of women hired 1 DEP, 1 DC Senior staff 0 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 6 Subtotal 33

Blue Nile State Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 150 Number of interviews conducted 40 Field survey staff per operational base 11 Number of women hired 6 Job titles of women hired 1 DEP, 4 DC, 1 FE Senior staff 5 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 6 Subtotal 22 Kassala, Red Sea, Gadaref, Sennar States Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 100 Number of interviews conducted 35 Field survey staff per operational base 14 Number of women hired 5 Job titles of women hired 5 DC Senior staff 2 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 6 Subtotal 22 Northern and Western Bahr El Ghazal States Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 100 Number of interviews conducted 40 Field survey staff per operational base 6 Number of women hired 0 Senior staff 2 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 4 Subtotal 12 Central Equatoria State Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 256 Number of interviews conducted 63 Field survey staff per operational base 12 Number of women hired 3 Job titles of women hired 3 DC Senior staff 3 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 7 Subtotal 22

154 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

Unity State Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 116 Number of interviews conducted 40 Field survey staff per operational base 6 Number of women hired 0 Senior staff 4 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 4 Subtotal 14

LIS Totals Number of applications for jobs with the LIS received 1,152 Number of interviews conducted 434 Field survey staff per operational base 118 Number of women hired 25 Senior staff 26 Support staff (drivers, logistic) 52 Total 196

LANDMINE IMPACT SURVEY – REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN 155

156 REPUBLIC OF THE SUDAN – ANNEXES

The successful completion of the Landmine Impact Survey in Sudan and the publication of this report would not have been possible without the input and effort of a large number of people and institutions. With respect to this, we would like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the following:

Project Support and Facilitation The following NGOs conducted the field work in these states: Alawad Albashir, NMAC Director, Khartoum Mines Advisory Group (MAG): (2005 – 2009) Blue Nile, Central Equatoria, Colonel Khalid Abdin Mohamed Eastern Equatoria, NMAC Director, Khartoum Western Equatoria, (2009) Gadaref, Kassala, Jurkuch Barach Jurkuch, Lakes, South Sudan Demining Authority Northern Bahr El Ghazal, Chairperson, Juba Western Bahr El Ghazal, Red Sea, Jim Pansegrouw, Sennar, UNMAO Director/ Unity, Programme Manager, Khartoum and Warrab (2005 – 2008) Survey Action Center (SAC): Jonglei and Nigel Forrestal, Southern Kordofan UNMAO Director/ Handicap International (HI): Programme Manager, Khartoum Upper Nile (2008 – 2009)

Mohamed Kabir, Drafting and Editing UNMAO Information Manager, Khartoum Damien Vallette d’Osia, SAC Takuto Kubo Mohamad Akram Amiri, SAC UNMAS Programme Officer, Khartoum and New York Mustafa Bawar, SAC John Ndungu Kamiri, SAC Hansie Heymans, UNMAO Planning Officer, Stephen Mpaayei, SAC Khartoum (2005 – 2006) Mike Kendellen, SAC Simon Porter, Bob Eaton, SAC UNMAO Regional Peter Harvey, SAC Technical Advisor, Khartoum (2005 – 2007)

Abigail Hartley, Report Production MAG Country Director (2005 – 2007) SYZYGY Media

Evy Vanweezendonk, Original design of Global Landmine MAG Survey Coordinator Survey Reports: (2006 – 2007) InForm Communications

Dr. Hussein Elobeid, A special thank you to all of the JASMAR General Manager, senior and national staff who made Khartoum up the field teams and office support, without whom none of this work would have been possible.

Table of Contents