South - State Displacement Crisis Assessment of Hard-to-Reach Areas in South Sudan May 2017

Overview Assessment coverage In 2014 and 2015, Upper Nile State was the site of some data in hard-to-reach areas of State. PoC1 and PoC3, as well as recently arrived IDPs of the most intense conflict in South Sudan. Although In December 2016, REACH decided to refine the in Akobo. Data collection was expanded to Renk in Upper 158 Key Informants assessed the state had enjoyed a period of relative calm in 2016, methodology, moving from the AoO to the Area of Nile State in April 2017. since January 2017, conflict has reignited across the Knowledge (AoK) methodology, an approach collecting Data collected is aggregated to the settlement level and all 99 Settlements assessed state. Many areas in Upper Nile are largely inaccessible information at the settlement level. The most recent percentiles presented in this factsheet, unless otherwise Contact with Area of Knowledge to humanitarian actors due to insecurity and logistical OCHA Common Operational Dataset (COD) released specified, represent percent of settlements within Upper constraints. As a result, only limited information is in February 2016 has been used as the reference for Nile with that specific response. The displacement section KIs reported to be newly arrived available on the humanitarian situation outside major settlement names and locations. Through AoK, REACH on page 2 refers to the proportion of assessed KIs arrived 98% IDPs. displacement sites. collects data from a network of Key Informants (KIs) who within the previous month (newly arrived IDPs). KIs reported to have visited the In order to fill such information gaps and facilitate have sector specific knowledge and gain information from Although current AoK coverage is still limited and its 13% AoK within the last month. humanitarian planning, in late 2015, REACH piloted its regular direct or indirect contact, or recent displacement. findings not statistically significant, it provides an indicative KIs reported to be in contact with Area of Origin (AoO) methodology, which takes a territory- Using this new methodology, in February 2017, REACH understanding of the needs and current humanitarian someone living in the AoK within based approach that may cover several bomas, to collect has collected information on Upper Nile through KIs in situation in assessed areas of Upper Nile State. 87% the last month.

AssessmentSUDAN coverage

Assessed settlements Reached villages Settlement

AO Cover percentage of assessed settlements County Assessed settlements OCHA (COD) settlements Cover percentage relative to the OCHA (COD) total dataset: Baliet 3 127 2% K 0% 0.1 - 4.9%1 Fashoda 14 198 7% 5 - 10% Longochuk 13 101 13% 10.1 - 20% Luakpiny/Nasir 16 151 11% 20.1 - 50% 50% Maban 3 117 3%

ASHODA Maiwut 8 82 10% AA

AAKA 11 115 10% AIKA AI Manyo 4 75 5% OOCHK 5 216 2%

AKIASI Panyikang 9 94 10% AI A Renk 6 278 2% Ulang 7 131 5% Total 158 1,685 9% 1 Counties with under 5% of settlement coverage are not disaggregated to the county level, but are included in state-level analysis.

1 May 2017 May 53+18+14+8+7 38+16+16+15+12+3 8% 7% 3% 53% 18% 14% 38% 16% 16% 15% 12% March 2017 April 2017 February 2017 or before May 2017

29% 50% 15% 6% South Sudan Displacement Crisis Displacement Sudan South More women than men About equal More men than women All/almost all women All/almost all men More adults than children About equal More children than adults All/almost all adults All/almost all older people No answer Displacement Demographic composition Reported gender ratio of local community remaining in assessed settlements: 29+50156+A Reported time of first displacement for newly Reported time of first arrived IDPs: Reported age ratio of local community remaining Reported age ratio of local community remaining in assessed settlements: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MAIWUT ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MABAN LONGOCHUK ● ● ● ● ● ● 17% 17% 12% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● LUAKPINY/NASIR RENK ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ULANG ● ● ● ● ● MELUT ● BALIET ● ● ● MANYO ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● FASHODA ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Luakpiny/ Longochuk County ● ● MALAKAL ● 2 3 1 PANYIKANG ● Insufficient data Insufficient 0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 100% ● Previous location Previous Top three reported most recent long-term Top IDPs: locations for newly arrived Percent of settlements reporting host community remaining: Local community 2

88% 63% 31% 57+17+14+6+6 35+32+18+6+6+3 6% 6% 3% 6% 6% 35% 32% 18% 17% 14% 2 57% Access to food Security Access to health services 2 3 1 No answer More men than women More children than adults All/almost all older people More adults than children All/almost all adults About equal More women than men All/almost all men All/almost all women About equal Most frequently cited as first, second and third most important Demographic composition Pull factors Reported age ratio of IDPs in assessed settlements: Reported gender ratio of IDPs in assessed settlements: Top three reported reasons newly arrived IDPs three reported reasons newly arrived IDPs Top location: came to their current 2 reasons. ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MAIWUT ● ● 56% 67% 63% ● ● ● ● ● MABAN LONGOCHUK ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● LUAKPINY/NASIR RENK ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ULANG ● ● ● 2 South Sudan - Upper Nile State Nile - Upper Sudan South Sudan in South Areas of Hard-to-Reach Assessment ● ● MELUT ● BALIET ● ● ● MANYO ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● Insecurity Lack of food Lack of health services ● ● ● ● ● FASHODA ● ● ● ● ● ● 2 3 1 ● ● ● ●

● MALAKAL ●

PANYIKANG ● 0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 100% Insufficient data Insufficient

●

Push factors

left their previous location: Top three reported reasons newly arrived IDPs three reported reasons newly arrived IDPs Top

Percent of settlements reporting presence of IDPs:

Displacement New arrivals

South Sudan - Upper Nile State South Sudan Displacement Crisis Assessment of Hard-to-Reach Areas in South Sudan May 2017

Health Shelter/NFI

Percent of settlements Health concerns Percent of settlements Percent of settlements reporting access to health reporting tukuls as a reporting tukuls as a care: Most commonly reported heath concerns in the primary shelter type for LC: primary shelter type for 3 IDPs: Insufficient data ● assessed settlements: Insufficient data ● ● 66+59+39+33+31 Insufficient data 0 - 25% 0 - 25%

●● 1 Malaria 66% ●● 0 - 25% ●● 26 - 50% ● 26 - 50% ● ● ● ● 26 - 50% ● 51 - 75% ● 2 Malnutrition 59% 51 - 75% ● ● RENK RENK 51 - 75% RENK 76 - 100% 3 Wounds 39% 76 - 100% MANYO MANYO 76 - 100% MANYO 4 Typhoid 33%

● ● ● 5 Diarrhea 31% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● MELUT ● MELUT ● MELUT

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ●

● MABAN ● MABAN ● MABAN FASHODA ● ● Health distance FASHODA ● ● FASHODA ● ● ●●● ●●● ●●●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MALAKAL● ● Reported distance of the nearest health care MALAKAL● ● MALAKAL● ● ●● ●● ●● ●●● ●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● BALIET ● BALIET ● BALIET ●PANYIKANG ●PANYIKANG ●PANYIKANG ● ● facilities from the assessed settlements: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 33+44+7+16

● ● ● LONGOCHUK ● LONGOCHUK ● LONGOCHUK ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Under 30 minutes 33% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● LUAKPINY/NASIR● LUAKPINY/NASIR● LUAKPINY/NASIR● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 30 minutes to under 1 hour 44% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MAIWUT ● MAIWUT ● MAIWUT ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ULANG ● ● ULANG ● ● ULANG ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 1 hour to under half a day 7% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Half a day 16% More than half a day 0% No answer 0%

Health unavailability Feeding programmes NFI Shelter sharing Top three reported reasons why health care Reported availability of feeding programmes that Reported number of people sharing a shelter in Reported proportion of the local community facilities are not available from the assessed provide Plumpy Sup, CSB++ or other nutrition assessed settlements: sharing shelters with IDPs: 0+9+25+45+12+9 settlements:4 supplements in the assessed settlements: 63+31+4+2 All 55 1 to 5 63% 0% Facilities were never 1 55% 6 to 10 31% More than half 9% available 48 76% Not available 11 to 15 4% Around half 25% Lack of drugs 48% 2 24% Available More than 15 2% Less than half 45% 35 Facilities destroyed by None 12% 3 35% 376+24+0+A violence Rank three most common health concerns normalized. 4 Rank two reasons health facilities are not available. No answer 9%

3 May 2017 May 53+14+13+9+6+5

37+45+13+4+1 9% 6% 5% 4% 1% 0% 53% 14% 13% 37% 45% 13% 8% 92% Available Not available South Sudan Displacement Crisis Displacement Sudan South Borehole yard Water Tapstand Donkey Protected well Other Under 30 minutes 30 minutes to under 1 hour 1 hour to under half a day Half a day More than half a day No answer Water distance Water Reported distance of the nearest safe water Reported distance of settlements: source from the assessed Water sources Water Reported primary safe water source available Reported primary safe water source available from the assessed settlements: 92+8+A Water availability Water Reported availability of safe water accessible from the assessed settlements: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MAIWUT ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MABAN LONGOCHUK ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

9+3+6+40+42+19% 2% 6% 1% ● ● 40% 42% LUAKPINY/NASIR RENK ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ULANG ● ● ● ● ● MELUT ● BALIET ● ● ● MANYO ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● FASHODA ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MALAKAL ● PANYIKANG ● Insufficient data Insufficient 0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 100% ● All More than half Around half Less than half None No answer Percent of settlements Percent of settlements to clean reporting access drinking water: Sanitation Reported usage of sanitation facilities in comparison with open defecation in assessed settlements: WASH WASH 4 5

1% 45% 54% Available No answer 40+44+13+3 Not available 3%

44% 13% 6851 45 0% 0% 40% 68% 51% 45% 54+451A Reported availability of a functioning market accessible from the assessed settlements: Market availability Unsafe to plant Crops destroyed by fighting Crops destroyed by natural disaster 1% 48% 51% 2 3 Half a day More than half a day No answer 1 Under 30 minutes 30 minutes to under 1 hour 1 hour to under half a day Available No answer Top three reported reasons why people cannot Top access enough food in the assessed settlements: Food unavailability Market distance Reported distance of the nearest market from the assessed settlements: Not available ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MAIWUT ● ● ● ● ● ● ● MABAN LONGOCHUK ● ● ● ● ● ● Reported availability of land for agriculture in the assessed settlements: 51+481A Land availability ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● LUAKPINY/NASIR RENK ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ULANG ● ● ● South Sudan - Upper Nile State Nile - Upper Sudan South Sudan in South Areas of Hard-to-Reach Assessment ● ● MELUT ● BALIET ● ● ● MANYO ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● FASHODA ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● coping strategies reported on average ● MALAKAL ●

PANYIKANG ●

76 - 100% 0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% Insufficient data Insufficient

●

1.8 Rank three reasons adequate food is not available. Percent of settlements Percent of settlements to reporting access adequate amounts of food:

5 assessed settlements: coping strategies used in the The average number of reported Coping strategies Food Security

South Sudan - Upper Nile State South Sudan Displacement Crisis Assessment of Hard-to-Reach Areas in South Sudan May 2017

Education Protection

Percent of settlements Education availability Women Men Children reporting access to education: Reported available education services in the Reported primary protection Reported primary protection Reported primary protection 6 Insufficient data ● assessed settlements: concerns for women in the concerns for men in the concerns for children in the 0 - 25% 61+38+31+4+3+2 assessed settlements: assessed settlements: assessed settlements:

●● None 61% 26 - 50% ● ● Killing/injury other 51 - 75% ● Primary 38% 1 Sexual violence 30% 1 34% 1 Family separation 25% RENK community 76 - 100% Pre-primary 31% MANYO Killing/injury other 2 25% 2 Forced recruitment 26% 2 None 19% Secondary 4% community ● ALP7 3% ● ● 14% 14% 17% ● 3 Domestic violence 3 Cattle raiding 3 Abduction ●

● ● MELUT Vocational training 2%

● ● Killing/injury other ● ● 4 Looting 10% 4 Looting 10% 4 13% ● MABAN FASHODA ● ● Education attendance and availability community ●●●

● ● ● ● ● Killing/injury same ● ● MALAKAL● ● Top two reported reasons why children are not 5 Abduction 10% 5 7% 5 Forced recruitment 6% ●● ●●● ● ● ● community ● BALIET ●PANYIKANG ● ● ● attending school in the assessed settlements: ●

● ● ● 33

● LONGOCHUK ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● High fees 64% Community relations Land disputes ● 1 ●

● ● ● 28 ●

● LUAKPINY/NASIR● 7 ● ● ● ● ● Children need to work Reported relationships between IDPs, returnees Reported presence of disputes over land ● MAIWUT ● ●● ● ●● 37% ● ● 2 ● ●● ● ULANG ● ● in the household ● ● and local community in the assessed settlements: ownership in the assessed settlements: ● ● ● 9+69+6+14+2 Top two reported reasons why education services Very Good 9% are not available in the assessed settlements: 45 Good 69% 1 No available facilities 45% Neutral 6% 89% No 31 Facilities destroyed by Poor 14% 2 31% 11% Yes conflict Very poor 2% School attendance 89+110+A No answer 0% 7 Local community displaced and returned home, reported in 53% of Reported proportion of 6-17 year old girls and 6-17 year old boys attending school in assessed settlements: assessed settlements. 0+63+29+8 0% 0% None About REACH 29% Less than half 63% REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors 53% Half 29% to make evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities 18% More than half 8% are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our 0% All 0% in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. 0+18+53+29 6 Key informants could choose more than one answer. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info. 7 Accelerated learning programmes.

5