DOCSLIB.ORG

Malakal Poc Site Flow Monitoring January – March 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Malakal PoC Site Flow Monitoring January – March 2021 IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) continued operating Displacement Site Flow Monitoring (DSFM) at the gates of Malakal Protection of Civilians Methodology: (PoC) site. During this period, 3,073 interviews were conducted representing 4,544 individual movements in to and out of the site. There was a 6.0 per Displacement Site Flow Monitoring (DSFM) involves cent decrease in surveyed day movements relative to October – December 2020, most of which are for farming / fishing (23.0%) and other livelihood interviewing a cross-section of persons passing through the site’s entry and exit points. DTM aims to understand mobility activities. Individuals embark on longer temporary travel primarily to visit friends or family (47.0%) and for farming / fishing (12.0%), with 36.0 per cent dynamics and reasons underpinning movement in and out of temporary travels lasting more than six months. Women and girls are slightly over-represented among both same day and temporary travelers. The of the site to provide partners with a better understanding number of surveyed new arrivals, 48.0 per cent of whom intend to stay more than six months, increased by a third relative to the previous quarter of same day movement, temporary travel, new entry and permanent exit. Interviews are conducted seven days a week (309 compared to 229). Common reasons for new arrivals were to join family (34.0%) or because their homes had been destroyed by natural disasters from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. DSFM provides indicative traveller profiles (14.0%). Surveyed permanent exits increased from 30 to 67 individuals, 82.0 per cent of whom traveled to join family in areas of return or relocation. rather than comprehensive or representative estimates. Biometric Registration 30,468 ind. (9,034 households) 14,185 (47%) Male 16,283 (53%) Female Same Day Travel n = 3,386 Temporary Travel n = 782 New Arrivals n = 309 Permanent Exits n = 6 7 40% 60% 44% 56% 44% 56% 39% 61% Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Most common reason for Most common reason for Most common reason: Most common reason: Farming/ fishing Visit friends/ family movement into the site: To be with family movement out of the site: To be with family Top reasons for same day movement Top reasons for temporary movement Top reasons for new arrivals Top reasons for permanent exit Farming/ fishing Visit friends/family To be with family To be with family 23% 11% 12% 47% 18% 29% 34% 14% 21% 82% 28% 54% Collect firewood Farming/ fishing Destroyed home because of natural disaster Looking for education opportunities 17% 1% 16% 12% 9.2% 2.3% 14% 8% 6% 12% 6% 6% Other livelihood activity Health services Hunger because of natural disaster Looking for livelihood/work opportunities 15% 8% 7% 8% 2.3% 5.5% 12% 6% 6% 3% 3% Make / sell charcoal Attempt to return home Healthcare generally Looking for education opportunites 10% 6% 4% 6% 2% 4% 11% 5% 6% 2% 1% Sand / soil Other livelihood activity Visit Family Leaving due to uncomfortable living conditions 8% 3% 5% 5% 3% 2% 8% 3% 5% 1% 1% Reasons continued; Reasons continued: Reasons continued: Access to services (3%), healthcare (3%), visit friends/ family To buy things (7%), visit friends / family (5%), washing clothes Collect firewood (5%), make / sell charcoal (3%), employ- No other reasons were recorded. (2%), not safe/insecurity because of conflict (2%), education (4%), education (3%), and other (8%). ment (3%), sand / soil (2%), and other (9%). (2%), other livelihood (1%), and other (8%). Daily gate count Intended period of stay / time spent away Intended period of stay at the site Nature & top destinations of permanent exit During the outbreak of COVID-19, DTM conducted daily Probably more than 6 months Probably more than 6 months Nature of % of permanent Main locations by gate counts for individual movements in and out of the site. 36% 22% 14% 48% 20% 28% Destination exit nature of destination Daily average movement from January to March 2021 are as 1 - 7 days (stayed at least one night) 2 - 4 weeks indicated in the table below. Former Home 73% Fashoda 29% 5% 24% 26% 14% 12% Month Entry Average Exit Average Net Flow 2 - 3 months 2 - 3 months New Home, dif- 19% Jabal Aulia (SDN) 18% 7% 11% 17% 6% 11% ferent area January 4,475 4,538 -63 4 - 6 months 2 - 4 weeks Former area but 15% 7% 4% 3% 4% Kosti (SDN) 8% 8% new home February 4,570 4,561 +9 4 - 6 months 1 - 7 days Other Displace- 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% - March 4,204 4,058 +146 ment site Begin Temporary travel Return from temporary travel Male Female 1Disclaimer: [Rounding] Percentages may not add up to 100% as a result of rounding error. Malakal PoC Site Flow Monitoring January – March 2021 Movement Dynamics Return from temporary travel n = 446 Embarking on temporary journey n = 336 Return from Temp orary Travel Sinkat Begin Temporary Travel River Nile From Temporary Travel Red Sea Begin Temporary Travel Khartoum North sala Northern Counties of origin Sharq El Nile Kas Counties of intended destinations 1 - 2 1 - 2 Um Durman 3 - 4 River Nile 3 - 6 Jabal Aulia 5 - 6 Malakal 43% 7 - 9North Darfur North Kordofan Malakal 19% 7 - 11 la 10 - 20 Greater Wad Madani sa G y s e ra 12 - 178 Sharq El Nile a 21 - 36 d Tig K Rabak a CNoourntthry Darfur Um Durman G S u d a n re e Fangak 13% Country Kosti S f Fashoda 17% Jabal Aulia da W en AdminS 1u d a n North Kordofan Admin 1 n S u d a n re e El Jabalian ar f s A t r Ti m gr K ay u e l Eastern Sennar f h Panyikang 8% o i Khartoum (SDN) 12% Sennar r E a a a r N Rabak d r W Kosti S s Renk a D e t o e n Abu Jubaiha e na D f u El Jabalian h l s r a t a t r n B K u r Khartoum (SDN) 8% V Panyikang 11% u f o Melut f u a r E or S r k a a Fashoda do s Renk a Upper Nile D t Amhara g D Abu Jubaiha f h a U Panyikang a a Fashoda 5% Fangak 7% n Longochuk V r f n FangakCanal/Pigi out ur MelutUpper Nile W a i t S Luakpiny/Nasir ka Northern Bahr el Ghazal y Fashoda Maban a o r t g Ayod Oromia t r a U Panyikang a E tth ii o p ii a Longochuk 3% o Renk 6% Longochuk p n Fangak W K i Akobo - Western Bahr el Ghazal Northern Bahr el Ghazal t y E t h i o p i a e o a E t h i o p i a Jonglei t t r r u ot a a p n tt rra ll A ff rr ii c a n R e p u b ll ii c K Um Durman (SDN) 3% Lak Rabak (SDN) 5% H es - Western Bahr el Ghazal e Jonglei Snnpr ut W t r a l A a f r i c a n R e p u b l i c e t r a l A f r i c a n R e p u b l i c L ou ster S o u t h S u d a n H akes om n Eq Snnpr Other 17% Mb uato Kosti (SDN) 5. ria toria ou S o u tt h S u d a n Equa m Juba tern Mbo Central Equatoria Eas T Western Equatoria toria u qua r M Other 18% E k Central EquatoriaJuba tern Ha a Eas na Oromia Bas-Uele ut-U a r a e n s k le a D e m o cBrraastt-iUice lRe e p u b lliic Ho affu Ct o n g o rK e n yMa a b -Uele u arsab D e m o c rr a ttii c R e p u b ll ii c o ff C o n g o U g a n d a it U g a n d a T it K e n y a The maps above do not include same-day travel, which tends to be limited to the immediate surroundings of the site. New arrivals n = 309 Permanent exit n = 6 7 New Entry Permanent Exit Kassala New Entry Sharq El Nile Permanent Exit Kassala 1 Um Durman Counties of origin Um Durman Jabal Aulia 1 Jabal Aulia Counties of intended destinations 2 North Kordofan North Kordofan ira North Darfur G 2 North Darfur az 3 - 4 e l G G da y 3 E e igra Fangak 22% da ray Fashoda 36% 5 - 7 re T 4 r Tig Rabak f Rabak e 8 S u d a n f S u d a n W Kosti S 5 - 10 S u d a n e W S nna S u d a n Kosti en e na Country r e s Country r Panyikang 19% s Panyikang 12% t r t K r Admin 1 K u S e Admin 1 u e f out l i f l r E or Manyo i h A r E or a K a N a A s do o a N r Renk m do D d s t U Renk m of D Juba 7% t U Renk 9% D a ue f n h Abu Jubaiha h D ue p l f h a h p l a a a pe a n a B r pe r n B f a r r out f a V ur r out V ur r a S N a S N ka Fashoda ka Fashoda i Khartoum (SDN) 6% Luakpiny/Nasir 9% i g l g l a e U Panyikang a e E tth ii o p ii a U Panyikang E tth ii o p ii a n Fangak n W Fangak i Luakpiny/Nasir W i Luakpiny/Nasir t Northern Bahr el Ghazal t y Northern Bahr el Ghazal a y NyirolUlang a Nyirol r ia Ayod Orom Um Durman (SDN) 6% r ia Jabal Aulia (SDN) 9% r Orom r a a p to o p ot Western Bahr el Ghazal ott Western Bahr el Ghazal e-K Jonglei -K Jonglei C e n t r a l uAt f r i c a n R e p u b l i c ute C e n t rHa al A f r i c a n R e p u b l i c Ayod 6% C e n tt rrHa all A ff rr ii c a n R e p u b ll ii c Fangak 6% Lakes Lakes Snnpr Snnpr S o u tt h S u d a n S o u t h S u d a n ou Kosti (SDN) 6% ou S o u t h S u d a n Malakal 4% bom m M Western Equatoria ria Mbo Western Equatoria ria quato quato Central EquatoriaJuba rn E Central Equatoria rn E Easte Rabak (SDN) 4% Easte Kosti (SDN) 4% T T u u r M r M Bas-Uele Aringa k Bas-Uele k a le a Haut-Uele a r Haut-Ue a r na s na s Arua Municipality a a a b Other 24% a b Other 11% l it l it ga U g a n d a ga D e m o c r a t i c R e p u b l i c o f C o n g o U g a n d a on D e m o c rr a ttii c R e p u b ll ii c o ff C o n g o U g a n d a K e n y a on D e m o c r a t i c R e p u b l i c o f C o n g o K e n y a M M Tshopo Ituri Tshopo Ituri.
Recommended publications
  • Report on Western Equatoria Infographic V6 Final

    Report on Western Equatoria Infographic V6 Final

    Joint report by United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and Ofce of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Report on violations and abuses against civilians in Gbudue April–August and Tambura States, Western Equatoria 2018 INTRODUCTION This report is jointly published by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and the Ofce of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 2406 (2018). The report presents the ndings of an investigation conducted by the UNMISS Human Rights Division (UNMISS HRD) into violations and abuses of international human rights law and violations of international humanitarian law reportedly committed by the pro-Machar Sudan People’s Liberation Army in Opposition (SPLA-IO (RM)) and the Government’s Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) against civilians in the states of Gbudue and Tambura, in Western Equatoria, between April and August 2018. The report documents the plight of civilians in the Western Equatoria region of South Sudan, where increased violence and attacks between April and August 2018 saw nearly 900 people abducted, including 505 women, and forced into sexual slavery or combat, and over 24,000 displaced from their homes. The report identies three SPLA-IO commanders who may bear the greatest responsibility for the violence committed against the civilian population in Western Equatoria during the period under consideration. HRD employed the standard of proof of reasonable grounds to believe in making factual determinations about the violations and abuses incidents, and patterns of conduct of the perpetrators. Unless specically stated, all information in the report has been veried using several independent, credible and reliable sources, in accordance with OHCHR’s human rights monitoring and investigation methodology.
  • Secretary-General's Report on South Sudan (September 2020)

    Secretary-General's Report on South Sudan (September 2020)

    United Nations S/2020/890 Security Council Distr.: General 8 September 2020 Original: English Situation in South Sudan Report of the Secretary-General I. Introduction 1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Security Council resolution 2514 (2020), by which the Council extended the mandate of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) until 15 March 2021 and requested me to report to the Council on the implementation of the Mission’s mandate every 90 days. It covers political and security developments between 1 June and 31 August 2020, the humanitarian and human rights situation and progress made in the implementation of the Mission’s mandate. II. Political and economic developments 2. On 17 June, the President of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, and the First Vice- President, Riek Machar, reached a decision on responsibility-sharing ratios for gubernatorial and State positions, ending a three-month impasse on the allocations of States. Central Equatoria, Eastern Equatoria, Lakes, Northern Bahr el-Ghazal, Warrap and Unity were allocated to the incumbent Transitional Government of National Unity; Upper Nile, Western Bahr el-Ghazal and Western Equatoria were allocated to the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army in Opposition (SPLM/A-IO); and Jonglei was allocated to the South Sudan Opposition Alliance. The Other Political Parties coalition was not allocated a State, as envisioned in the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan, in which the coalition had been guaranteed 8 per cent of the positions. 3. On 29 June, the President appointed governors of 8 of the 10 States and chief administrators of the administrative areas of Abyei, Ruweng and Pibor.
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com09/24/2021 04:59:59AM Via Free Access “They Are Now Community Police” 411

    Downloaded from Brill.Com09/24/2021 04:59:59AM Via Free Access “They Are Now Community Police” 411

    international journal on minority and group rights 22 (2015) 410-434 brill.com/ijgr “They Are Now Community Police”: Negotiating the Boundaries and Nature of the Government in South Sudan through the Identity of Militarised Cattle-keepers Naomi Pendle PhD Candidate, London School of Economics, London, UK [email protected] Abstract Armed, cattle-herding men in Africa are often assumed to be at a relational and spatial distance from the ‘legitimate’ armed forces of the government. The vision constructed of the South Sudanese government in 2005 by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement removed legitimacy from non-government armed groups including localised, armed, defence forces that protected communities and cattle. Yet, militarised cattle-herding men of South Sudan have had various relationships with the governing Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement/Army over the last thirty years, blurring the government – non government boundary. With tens of thousands killed since December 2013 in South Sudan, questions are being asked about options for justice especially for governing elites. A contextual understanding of the armed forces and their relationship to gov- ernment over time is needed to understand the genesis and apparent legitimacy of this violence. Keywords South Sudan – policing – vigilantism – transitional justice – war crimes – security © NAOMI PENDLE, 2015 | doi 10.1163/15718115-02203006 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 04:59:59AM via free access “they Are Now Community Police” 411 1 Introduction1 On 15 December 2013, violence erupted in Juba, South Sudan among Nuer sol- diers of the Presidential Guard.
  • Wartime Trade and the Reshaping of Power in South Sudan Learning from the Market of Mayen Rual South Sudan Customary Authorities Project

    Wartime Trade and the Reshaping of Power in South Sudan Learning from the Market of Mayen Rual South Sudan Customary Authorities Project

    SOUTH SUDAN CUSTOMARY AUTHORITIES pROjECT WARTIME TRADE AND THE RESHAPING OF POWER IN SOUTH SUDAN LEARNING FROM THE MARKET OF MAYEN RUAL SOUTH SUDAN customary authorities pROjECT Wartime Trade and the Reshaping of Power in South Sudan Learning from the market of Mayen Rual NAOMI PENDLE AND CHirrilo MADUT ANEI Published in 2018 by the Rift Valley Institute PO Box 52771 GPO, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya 107 Belgravia Workshops, 159/163 Marlborough Road, London N19 4NF, United Kingdom THE RIFT VALLEY INSTITUTE (RVI) The Rift Valley Institute (www.riftvalley.net) works in eastern and central Africa to bring local knowledge to bear on social, political and economic development. THE AUTHORS Naomi Pendle is a Research Fellow in the Firoz Lalji Centre for Africa, London School of Economics. Chirrilo Madut Anei is a graduate of the University of Bahr el Ghazal and is an emerging South Sudanese researcher. SOUTH SUDAN CUSTOMARY AUTHORITIES PROJECT RVI’s South Sudan Customary Authorities Project seeks to deepen the understand- ing of the changing role of chiefs and traditional authorities in South Sudan. The SSCA Project is supported by the Swiss Government. CREDITS RVI EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Mark Bradbury RVI ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND COMMUNICATIONS: Cedric Barnes RVI SOUTH SUDAN PROGRAMME MANAGER: Anna Rowett RVI SENIOR PUBLICATIONS AND PROGRAMME MANAGER: Magnus Taylor EDITOR: Kate McGuinness DESIGN: Lindsay Nash MAPS: Jillian Luff,MAPgrafix ISBN 978-1-907431-56-2 COVER: Chief Morris Ngor RIGHTS Copyright © Rift Valley Institute 2018 Cover image © Silvano Yokwe Alison Text and maps published under Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 Available for free download from www.riftvalley.net Printed copies are available from Amazon and other online retailers.
  • South Sudan - Crisis Fact Sheet #2, Fiscal Year (Fy) 2019 December 7, 2018

    South Sudan - Crisis Fact Sheet #2, Fiscal Year (Fy) 2019 December 7, 2018

    SOUTH SUDAN - CRISIS FACT SHEET #2, FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2019 DECEMBER 7, 2018 NUMBERS AT USAID/OFDA1 FUNDING HIGHLIGHTS A GLANCE BY SECTOR IN FY 2018 Relief actor records at least 150 GBV cases in Bentiu during a 12-day period 5% 7% 20% UN records two aid worker deaths, 60 7 million 7% Estimated People in South humanitarian access incidents in October 10% Sudan Requiring Humanitarian USAID/FFP partner reaches 2.3 million Assistance 19% 2018 Humanitarian Response Plan – people with assistance in October December 2017 15% 17% HUMANITARIAN FUNDING Logistics Support & Relief Commodities (20%) Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (19%) FOR THE SOUTH SUDAN RESPONSE 6.1 million Health (17%) Nutrition (15%) USAID/OFDA $135,187,409 Estimated People in Need of Protection (10%) Food Assistance in South Sudan Agriculture & Food Security (7%) USAID/FFP $402,253,743 IPC Technical Working Group – Humanitarian Coordination & Info Management (7%) September 2018 Shelter & Settlements (5%) 3 State/PRM $91,553,826 USAID/FFP2 FUNDING $628,994,9784 2 million BY MODALITY IN FY 2018 1% TOTAL USG HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR THE SOUTH SUDAN CRISIS IN FY 2018 Estimated IDPs in 84% 9% 5% South Sudan OCHA – November 8, 2018 U.S. In-Kind Food Aid (84%) 1% $3,760,121,951 Local & Regional Food Procurement (9%) TOTAL USG HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR THE Complementary Services (5%) SOUTH SUDAN RESPONSE IN FY 2014–2018, Cash Transfers for Food (1%) INCLUDING FUNDING FOR SOUTH SUDANESE Food Vouchers (1%) REFUGEES IN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES 194,900 Estimated Individuals Seeking Refuge at UNMISS Bases KEY DEVELOPMENTS UNMISS – November 15, 2018 During a 12-day period in late November, non-governmental organization (NGO) Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) recorded at least 150 gender-based violence (GBV) cases in Unity State’s Bentiu town, representing a significant increase from the approximately 2.2 million 100 GBV cases that MSF recorded in Bentiu between January and October.
  • 2011 South Sudan Education Statistical Booklet

    2011 South Sudan Education Statistical Booklet

    Education Statistics for Western Equatoria Government of Republic of South Sudan Ministry of General Education and Instruction State Statistical Booklet Western Equatoria Republic of South Sudan Ministry of General Education and Instruction Directorate of Planning and Budgeting Department of Data and Statistics Education Management Information Systems Unit Juba, South Sudan www.goss.org © Ministry of General Education and Instruction 2012 This publication may be used as a part or as a whole, provided that the MoGEI is acknowledged as the source of information. This publication has been produced with financial and technical support from UNICEF, FHI360, and SCiSS. For inquiries or requests, please use the following contact information: George Mogga / Director for Planning and Budgeting / [email protected] Fahim Akbar / Senior EMIS Advisor / [email protected] Moses Kong / EMIS Officer / [email protected] Paulino Kamba / EMIS Officer / [email protected] Joanes Odero / Programme Associate / [email protected] Deng Chol Deng / Programme Associate / [email protected] 1 Foreword Message from Minister Joseph Ukel Abango On behalf of the Ministry of General Education and Instruction (MoGEI), I am pleased for the fifth education census data for the Republic of South Sudan (RSS). The collection and consolidation of the Education Management Information System (EMIS) have come a long way since the baseline assessment, or the Rapid Assessment of Learning Spaces (RALS) conducted in 2006. RALS covered less than half of the primary schools operating in the country at the time. By 2011, data from pre-primary, primary, secondary, an Alternative Education Systems (AES), and technical and vocational education and training (TVET) schools, centres, and institutes were collected.
  • Conflict and Crisis in South Sudan's Equatoria

    Conflict and Crisis in South Sudan's Equatoria

    SPECIAL REPORT NO. 493 | APRIL 2021 UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org Conflict and Crisis in South Sudan’s Equatoria By Alan Boswell Contents Introduction ...................................3 Descent into War ..........................4 Key Actors and Interests ............ 9 Conclusion and Recommendations ...................... 16 Thomas Cirillo, leader of the Equatoria-based National Salvation Front militia, addresses the media in Rome on November 2, 2019. (Photo by Andrew Medichini/AP) Summary • In 2016, South Sudan’s war expand- Equatorians—a collection of diverse South Sudan’s transitional period. ed explosively into the country’s minority ethnic groups—are fighting • On a national level, conflict resolu- southern region, Equatoria, trig- for more autonomy, local or regional, tion should pursue shared sover- gering a major refugee crisis. Even and a remedy to what is perceived eignty among South Sudan’s con- after the 2018 peace deal, parts of as (primarily) Dinka hegemony. stituencies and regions, beyond Equatoria continue to be active hot • Equatorian elites lack the external power sharing among elites. To spots for national conflict. support to viably pursue their ob- resolve underlying grievances, the • The war in Equatoria does not fit jectives through violence. The gov- political process should be expand- neatly into the simplified narratives ernment in Juba, meanwhile, lacks ed to include consultations with of South Sudan’s war as a power the capacity and local legitimacy to local community leaders. The con- struggle for the center; nor will it be definitively stamp out the rebellion. stitutional reform process of South addressed by peacebuilding strate- Both sides should pursue a nego- Sudan’s current transitional period gies built off those precepts.
  • 09.04.20 South Sudan Program

    09.04.20 South Sudan Program

    South Sudan USG Response to the Complex Emergency COUNTRYWIDE PROGRAMS Response Sectors: SUDAN Agriculture Economic Recovery, Market Systems, and Livelihoods Education Food Assistance CHAD Health Humanitarian Coordination and Information Management Humanitarian Policy, Studies, Analysis, or Application Multipurpose Cash Assistance Logistics Support and Relief Commodities Abyei Area- UPPER NILE Disputed* Nutrition Protection NORTHERN UNITY Shelter and Settlements CENTRAL BAHR EL GHAZAL Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene AFRICAN WARRAP REPUBLIC WESTERN BAHR EL GHAZAL JONGLEI LAKES Response Partners: ETHIOPIA AAH/USA Mentor Initiative WESTERN EQUATORIA ACTED Mercy Corps EASTERN EQUATORIA ALIMA Nonviolent Peaceforce ARC NRC CENTRAL CONCERN OCHA EQUATORIA CRS Relief International Danish Refugee Council (DRC) Samaritan's Purse Doctors of the World SCF FAO Tearfund ICRC UNHCR IFRC UNICEF IMC VSF/G UGANDA KENYA Internews WFP (UNHAS) IOM WFP DEMOCRATIC IRC WHO REPUBLIC Lutheran World Federation World Vision, Inc. (USA) MEDAIR, SWI WRI OF THE CONGO * Final sovereignty status of Abyei Area pending negotiations between South Sudan and Sudan. IDPs in South Sudan Estimated Food Security Levels # By State " UNMISS IDP Site SUDAN THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2020 # Malakal UNMISS 1: Minimal 4: Emergency 60,000 - 100,000 IDP Site ~813,300 base: 27,900 100,000 - 150,000 Host Communities # 2: Stressed 5: Famine 150,000 - 200,000 ## 3: Crisis No Data Abyei Area - 200,000 - 250,000 Bentiu UNMISS Disputed # Source: FEWS NET, South Sudan Outlook, August - September 2020 base: 111,800 ~9,300 ## ## # # ~233,800# # ## # ##"# # # #"# # ### # #~76,400 # # # ~226,000 # # # # # # # ### Wau UNMISS # ETHIOPIA ##~246,700 # base: 10,000 #"## # ~71,200 ~346,300 # # ~207,200 # ~187,200 # # Bor C.A.R. UNMISS # ~2,600 #"# base: # # 1,900 ## # ~70,900 ## # # # ~60,100 Map reflects FEWS NET # ##"# # # # food security projections # Refugees in Neighboring Countries #~220,800 # at the area level.
  • Total Returns to South Sudan Post CPA to June 2009

    Total Returns to South Sudan Post CPA to June 2009

    IOM Tracking of Spontaneous Returns Project Total Returns to South Sudan Post CPA to June 2009 Table of Contents Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Background....................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1. En-route Tracking............................................................................................................................. 5 3.2. Area of Return Tracking................................................................................................................... 6 4. Capacity Building of SSRRC and VRRC......................................................................................... 6 5. Total Estimated Number of Returns ................................................................................................. 8 6. Analysis of Area of Return - Cumulative Data, February 2007 to June 2009................................ 10 6.1. Total
  • Wfp256400.Pdf

    Wfp256400.Pdf

    Acknowledgements This report is a collaborative effort of the Republic of South Sudan ministries, UN agencies and development partners. These include: Food Security Technical Secretariat (FSTS), National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MoAF), Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries (MoARF), Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) and Ministry of Health (MoH). The activity was funded by the World Food Programme (WFP). The UN agencies included: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Food Programme, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA). We gratefully acknowledge support provided by Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) and all partners of the Food Security and Livelihoods and Nutrition clusters for their invaluable inputs and the ANLA Technical Working Group (chaired by FSTS) that dedicated their time to contribute different chapters of the report. We especially thank Manase Yanga Laki, Elijah Luak (MoAF), Bernard Owadi, Idiku Michael, Hersi Mohamud, Gummat Abdallatif, Yomo Lawrence (WFP VAM Team), Elijah Mukhala (FAO), Mtendere Mphatso (FSL Cluster), Gloria Kusemererwa of WFP Nutrition Unit who prepared specific chapters of the report. Overall technical editing and layout of the report was done by WFP VAM Unit. Last but not least we thank all the men and women who braved difficult terrain and long travel hours to provide the empirical data used for this report. For questions or comments concerning
  • SOUTH SUDAN OVERVIEW of IDP REQUESTS for HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT to RETURN OR RELOCATE WITHIN SOUTH SUDAN 22 April 2020

    SOUTH SUDAN OVERVIEW of IDP REQUESTS for HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT to RETURN OR RELOCATE WITHIN SOUTH SUDAN 22 April 2020

    SOUTH SUDAN OVERVIEW OF IDP REQUESTS FOR HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT TO RETURN OR RELOCATE WITHIN SOUTH SUDAN 22 April 2020 UNHCR remains committed to support Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) to make informed and voluntary decisions on the durable solutions they would like to pursue. UNHCR has been recording and consolidating requests from IDPs who approached protection desks asking for humanitarian assistance to return home or relocate to another location within South Sudan. Number of Requests April Highlights Requests Trend as of April, 2020 1,057 Households / 4,487 Individuals 4487 April 2018-April 2020 requested for support Destinations (houshold): Wau(459),Leer (80 ), Panyijiar (56),Rubkona (54 ), Ayod (50 ), Juba (38 ), Koch (34 ), Fangak (31), Guit (29), Akobo(28), Luakpiny/Nasir (27), Ulang (24),Mayendit (22), Maiwut(21), 908 Uror (18), Raja(16), Jur River(15), Nyirol (14), Malakal(6), 796 506 373 291 283 Longochuk(6),Mayom (5), Terekeka (5), Lainya (3), Torit (3), 1 3 5 92 10 23 42 14 65 20 88 24 9 7 20 Yambio (3), Tonji(1), Bor South (1), Manyo (1), 2,143 Households Apr Jun Jul Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 8,067 Individuals Nagero(1),Tambura(1), Gogrial(1),Panyikang (1), Budi (1), 2018 2019 2020 Yei (1), Fashoda (1) INTENDED DESTINATIONS SUDAN 83 Renk 5 Manyo Melut 15 Fashoda Maban Abyei region 33 Upper Unity Malakal Nile Pariang Panyikang 223 Rubkona Baliet Abiemnhom Longochuk Aweil North Guit 65 Aweil East Mayom Fangak 386 109 Twic 183 511 Aweil West 194 1 Luakpiny/Nasir Raja Gogrial
  • SOUTH SUDAN Humanitarian Snapshot January 2020

    SOUTH SUDAN Humanitarian Snapshot January 2020

    SOUTH SUDAN Humanitarian Snapshot January 2020 The 2020 Humanitarian Needs Overview estimated that approximately 7.5 million people will need humanitarian Clashes were reported between various armed groups in Upper Nile, and Central and Western Equatoria. assistance in 2020. Some 5.5 million people were expected to be acutely food insecure in January according to the Fighting in Maiwut County, Upper Nile, and in Yei and Lainya counties, Central Equatoria, led to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) projections released in September 2019.1 A new IDP baseline displacement of more than 19,000 civilians—of these, over 8,000 sought refuge in Ethiopia. Clashes released by IOM and OCHA in January indicated that 1.67 million people were internally displaced as of November between armed youth groups in Mvolo County, Western Equatoria, displaced an estimated 5,000 people. 2019. This is a marginal increase from the IDP count published in September 2019, resulting mainly from increased Communal fighting, violent cattle raids, forceful recruitment and forced relocation were reported in geographic coverage of assessment locations. It does not represent an absolute increase in the number of IDPs in the Jonglei, Unity and Western Equatoria. An armed attack in the disputed Abyei area displaced an country.2 Pockets of populations continued to need assistance due to the 2019 floods. estimated 4,800 people and resulted in more than 50 civilian casualties. KEY FIGURES 7.5M 1.67M 190K 2.22M 298K 5.5M 597K 860k PEOPLE IN NEED INTERNALLY IDPS