Deka Suftu Woreda IDP Sites Rapid Protection Assessment Report

Deka Suftu woreda IDP sites

Rapid Protection Assessment report

March 2018

Contents Acronyms and Key terms...... 2 List of Tables ...... 2 1. Introduction ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Project background ...... 3 Geographical overview of the Assessment Area ...... 3 1.2 Objective of the Assessment ...... 4 1.2.1 Specific objective ...... 4 1.3 Scope of the Assessment ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.1 Composition of The Assessment team ...... 5 1.4 Informed Consent and Ethical Consideration ...... 5 1.5 Methodology and Assessment tools...... 5 1.5.1 Selection Procedure of the participants ...... 6 1.6 Main Protection Issues Identified in Deka Suftu IDP Locations Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.6.1 Specific findings per site ...... 10 Conclusions ...... 16 Recommendations ...... 17

Acronyms and Key terms CP Child protection

DRC Danish refugee council

DPPB Disaster prevention preparedness bureau

DTM Displacement tracking matrix

FGD Focus group discussion

FGM Female Genital Mutilation

GBV Gender-based violence

HC Host community

IOM International Organization for Migration

IRC International Rescue Committee

KII Key Informant Interview

NFI None food items

KM Kilometer

IDP Internally displaced people

WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene

SGBV Sexual and Gender based Violence

WCAO Women and Children affairs office

WFP World Food Program

List of Tables

TABLE 1 ASSESSMENT SITES ...... 4

TABLE 2 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANT FOR ALL ASSESSMENT TOOLS ...... 6

1. Introduction The Danish Refugee Council (DRC)is an international non-governmental organization, which has been providing relief and development services in the Horn of Africa since 1997. DRC promotes and supports solutions to the problems faced by refugees, internally displaced people (IDPs), and migrants. The organization has offices across the region and has been operational in Ethiopia since 2009. With funding from bilateral and multilateral donors, DRC is currently implementing a range of activities across Ethiopia and Djibouti, including WASH and shelter provision, child and youth protection, gender-based violence prevention and response, awareness raising on migration risks, protection monitoring and livelihoods support for returning migrants or those at-risk of migration. Project background In order to respond to the needs of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and persons with specific needs amongst IDP communities in Somali region DRC is implementing a series of protection activities. Some of these are focusing on generating information to inform the humanitarian response, while others aim at identifying protection trends, risks, and individuals with specific needs requiring targeted services offered by DRC or referral to specialized service providers. The following assessment was conducted as part of DRC protection project that primarily aims at enhancing the safety of IDPs in Somali region particularly in Deka Suftu Woreda, of Liban zone. Background on Displacement in Deka Suftu

The inter-clan conflict between Somali and Oromo communities along the border of the two regional states intensified throughout 2016 and 2017 leading to masses of internally displaced persons seeking safety. The Ethiopia Somali Regional State is hosting the largest IDP population in the country.T he total number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Somali region is 832,652 (127,920 households). Moreover, this number is slightly different depending on the cause of displacement – 488,154 (7,1657households) for conflict induced and 344,498(56,263 households) for climate-induced displacement (Source: DTM round 9).

Many people have fled their homes in search of safety and security due to conflict and escalating violence since mid-2016. This has in many cases put them at an increased risk of abuse and exploitation. Currently, most of the displaced persons are living in rural areas in collective centers or in makeshift shelters.

Due to the conflict-induced displacement from the Southern part of Oromia region,14 sites hosting IDPs are identified in Deka Suftu Woreda. As of July 2016, DPPB has reported 47,000 IDPs in Deka Suftu originating from different rural and urban areas from Gogi and Bale Zone of Oromia region.

Geographical overview of the Assessment Area Deka Suftu is one of the Woredas in Liben zone of the Somali Region of Ethiopia. Part of the Liben Zone, Deka Suftu is bordered on the south by Dawa River which separates it from Moyale

and Hudet, on the west by Oromia Region, on the north and east by Kersa Dula, and on the southeast by Filtu Woreda. The major town of this woreda is Deka Suftu. The altitude of this woreda ranges from 200 along the Ganale Dorya, to as high as 1500 meters above sea level. Deka Suftu is located at the frontier between the traditional territories of the Somali and Oromo people living in the southwestern part of Ethiopia. 1.2 Objective of the Assessment The site assessment mission aimed to identify the needs of IDPs, including critical protection issues, in order to facilitate a timely and adequate response by humanitarian actors. The objective of the mission is to further promote understanding as to internal displacement in Deka Suftu, identify vulnerable groups of IDPs, and provide actionable recommendations for humanitarian actors. 1.2.1 Specific objective

 To assess the current major protection concerns and risks among IDP communities  To identify existing protection systems  To identify the most affected IDP sites in terms of protection needs and access to service

1.3 Scope of the Assessment The current assessment covers six conflict-induced IDP sites, which are located in Deka Suftu woreda, which were pre-selected based on the findings of the round eight Displacement tracking matrix (DTM). Newly displaced communities and displacement sites have been prioritized for this rapid assessment. Additional criteria for the site selection included number of individuals displaced, reason for displacement (conflict induced displacement was prioritized) and protection concerns identified in DTM round eight.

Table 1Assessed sites

No Site Kebele Woreda GPS GPS # HHS # name Longitude Latitude Individu Remarks als 1 Bunda Bunda Deka 39.85414 5.18334 620 3027 Hosted Qaran Qaran Suftu with HC

2 Kansah Takadhagar Deka 39.8541116 5.092987 201 1006 Displace Dhere Suftu 6 5 d outside of the HC 3 Awobare Takadhagar Deka 39.85425 5.007181 600 3000 Displace Suftu d outside of the HC 4 Dhungo Bunda Deka 39.8538847 5.182989 750 3700 Displace

Qaran Suftu 3 089 d outside of the HC

5 Horsed 02 Deka 39.9569721 5.205773 215 1079 Displace Suftu 7 623 d outside of the HC 6 Galun Galun Deka 39.8168778 4.752708 673 3365 Displace Suftu 005 d outside of the HC

1.3.1 Composition of The Assessment team The assessment was conducted between the periods of Feb 20– 30/2018. The main participants during the assessment were DRC’s Protection team leader, GBV officer, as well as the woreda women and children affairs officer and a representative from the Disaster preparedness and prevention bureau (DPPB).

Name Organization Title Belete Getahun DRC Protection team leader Hafidha Mohamed DRC Protection officer Abduilkader Dawod Deka Suftu Woreda DPPB Acting Head Fatuma Hussien WCAO Expert

1.4 Informed Consent and Ethical Consideration Verbal clearances were secured from Deka Suftu Woreda Administration office to access IDP sites and to conduct the assessment. Ethical data collection – This assessment took into consideration the cultural and socio-political context in Somali region. Only questions appropriate for this setting, and according to what is ethical, moral and responsible, were included in the survey. Confidentiality – This assessment ensures that the confidentiality of the information provided by respondents is respected. Confidentiality was assured and no personal details were recorded. Voluntary participation: The participants received sufficient information verbally regarding the objective and the purpose of the assessment to enable each person to voluntarily decide whether to participate or not in the assessment. The participants were informed that they could withdraw from the discussion at any time. To this end, the right of the respondents to refuse to answer a few or all questions was respected. 1.5 Methodology and Assessment tools Two government representatives accompanied the DRC team in order to ensure transparency and government involvement in the overall assessment activity. The DRC team conducted focused group discussions using standardized questions; the IDPs openly discussed their views and needs

in regards to the subject matter responding to protection needs and concerns. The assessment team conducted separate FGDs with women and girls to ensure that protection concerns affecting them specifically will be captured in the assessment. The communities visited have been suggesting their own needs and problems in order to improve their safety, the access to services and concerns. In addition to the FGD, key informant interviews and site observation checklists complemented the assessment. The following valid data collection tools were used in the assessment: A. Focus group Discussion tool B. Key Informant Interview questionnaire C. Protection observation tool

1.5.1Selection Procedure of the participants The team randomly selected the participants based on their availability (convenience method) during the assessment period and the selection criteria stated for each data-gathering tool. The participation in the assessment was voluntary. DRC provided refreshments for participants during each FGD session. The summary of the participants is illustrated in the table below

Table 2 total number of participant for all assessment tools

Assessment tool Total Total sessions Facilitator Notetaker participant conducted 1. Focus group 72 6 Hafida Mohamed Fatuma Hussien Discussion with IDP community women and girls 2. FGD With the IDP 72 6 Belete Getahun Belete Getahun community 3. KII 6 6 Belete Getahun 4. Protection ---- 6(one for each Belete Getahun observation site ) Total 150

Major Challenges during the Assessment 1. The accessibility of some of the sites due to the poor road conditions and security reasons 2. Assessment fatigue from the population and need for immediate actions, however, the government representatives accompanying the Mobile Protection team were supportive in organizing and mobilizing the IDPs during KII and FGDs.

Limitation of the rapid Assessment 1. The rapid assessment is based on qualitative information, reflections, opinions and judgments of the IDP population about their situation and lacks quantitative data on the exact measurement of a given situation. 2. Due to safety and security concerns some IDP sites in Deka Suftu were not accessible and therefore are not included in this assessment.

1.6 Summary: Main Protection issues identified in Deka Suftu IDP Locations Lack of Documentation: The majority of IDPs do not have civil documentation, with many reporting to have lost their documents during displacement. Population Movement: In some of the assessed IDP sites, there is still an ongoing displacement. Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) : Some women and girls have reported that they have been raped and/or abducted before arriving in Deka Suftu. The reason behind the abductions is not known and furthermore most survivors did not report the incidents fearing stigmatization. In addition, women who are settled in IDP sites near to the boarder are at risk of rape and abduction. Child protection issues: the main protection issues for displaced children are the lack of recreational materials and/or opportunities as well as family separation. Children are not enjoying their right to rest and leisure since they do not have access to recreational activities and sport facilities. A number of separated children due to the conflict were also reported but the number is not as per today known. Family Tracing for Separated/Unaccompanied Children and Missing Persons: No systematic practice exists to link IDPs with family members who have missing. This includes the lack of a tracing system for separated and unaccompanied children. Shelter: For IDPs in informal settlements, access to adequate shelter is an immediate need, as they are living in scrapped-together shelters, which are especially problematic during rainy season. Across IDP locations, large families (6 to 10) are crowded into small rooms. IOM had until the time the report was written distributed Shelter kits for selected households in two IDP sites in Deka Suftu Health: Lack of access to health care and medicine, affecting especially pregnant women is the main concern of IDPs in some IDP locations. IDPs reported severe health issues that have not been attended due to the lack of access to health services in their areas of displacement. Access to health facilities is impended due to the distance and the inability of the IDPs to pay for medical care in the nearby towns like Filtu. Livelihood: Most of the IDPs left their belongings behind and there is no plan yet for starting their own livelihood activity in all IDP sites. Many IDPs reported to have been farmers and pastoralists prior to displacement. In a few cases, private donations support communities. Many IDPs nonetheless expressed concern over lack of sufficient livelihood opportunities, with numerous IDPs, including many women, stating that they are idle and requesting assistance to start earning a living. Food: Insufficient amount of food was reported as a key concern of IDPs. Food aid was distributed only once in all assessed IDP sites in Deka Suftu, except Awobere. However IDPs mentioned their concern on the amount of food they received and appropriateness of the food provided according to the local habits 8

Education : Inconsistent access to education exists in Deka Suftu IDP locations, with a portion of IDPs receiving help to attend informal religious Education. Quality of schools varies—with some informal IDP schools taking place in open areas without teaching materials/books. There is no practice ensuring that school-age IDP children are enrolled in State-run education programs or in any education program, and indeed many IDP children are not attending primary and secondary school. WASH : • In all IDP sites, there are no latrine services to cater to the population and IDPs are defecating in the open. This in turn can lead to disease outbreaks • IDPs do not have sufficient quantities of safe water for personal and domestic use, including drinking, cooking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, and personal and domestic hygiene. IDPs rely on water tracking services provided by the regional government in a weekly basis. There is no clear information on how much water has been distributed per household per day. Inadequate Systematic Humanitarian Response : While some international NGOs provided one time assistance in the form of food aid (WFP) and NFIs for specific vulnerable households (IRC) no adequate systematic response on the part of international and national humanitarian agencies and actors has been instituted. The need for advocacy for adequate humanitarian response to IDPs in Deka Suftu is critical since the level of need and the assistance provided is not proportional. NFI: International rescue committee (IRC) provided NFIs for selected IDP sites however, IDPs have limited access to sufficient non-food items (e.g. cooking fuel, blankets, soap, mosquito nets, and sanitary materials, appropriate to local customs). Safety and Security: In some sites, IDPs feel insecure because of the current location they are settled. Some of the IDP sites are near to the conflict areas in the boarder and some security incidents have reported. Certain areas more at risk than others depending on the proximity of the sites to the boarder. However, there is no tension/hostility between host community and internally displaced communities in all Deka Suftu sites. In all assessed IDP settlements, IDPs feel in secured due to lack of lightening. Dispute resolutions and relationships with the host communities: In all sites, it was reported that IDPs rely on village/ site leaders and/or committees to solve disputes, and to report any safety and protection issues, including sexual violence. They rely on this structure for protection, mediation, and reporting of such cases. 80 % of the IDP families are currently staying in a public land which is separated from the host community. In most IDP sites, it was reported that the relationship between IDP community and host communities is peaceful and supportive; in most areas, the host communities are willing to

support IDP communities through different mechanisms including sharing food items and water resource IDP Intentions : Some IDPs expressed desire to return to their areas of habitual origin only when peace and safety returns. However many IDPs have no desire to return to their habitual origin and they demand integration with the host community.

1.6.1. Specific findings per site

1. Bunda Qaran Overview: Bunda Qaran is an informal site comprised entirely of temporary, scrapped-together shelters, hosting IDPs from Gogi zone of Oromia region. The IDPs are displaced due to inter- clan conflict and violence. Due to this fact, this site was established. There are 620 households and 3027 individual IDPs accounted for at the site according to the IDP leaders but there are not any consolidated data from government officials. The site was established in 2016 and since then IDPs continue to arrive in the site due to boarder conflict between two regional states in search of safety. Major issues • Shelter: Access to adequate shelter is an immediate need of the IDPs as they are living in scrapped-together shelters, which are especially problematic during the rainy season, as they are not keeping out the rain/cold. Overcrowded conditions in the IDP sites have resulted in lack of privacy for women. This was mentioned in all sites. Most households contain from six to 10 people living in the same shelter. • Health: Health concerns were cited as main concerns by IDPs since the existing health post lacks drugs and qualified personnel. • Safety issues: IDPs have stressed that they have not felt safe in the settlement because of the hostility with the Oromo community, which is near to their settlement. The distance to the boarders is only 4 kilometers • SGBV: Early marriage, domestic violence and FGM are reported on site and issues related with absence of specialized services for women/girls are present. Additional risk factor is the lack of latrines onsite which causes women to defecate in the bushes out of the sites • Need for PSS: some IDPs have been separated from family members and others do not know whether their loved ones are dead or alive. Psychosocial support services are greatly needed to help families deal with such trauma. Many IDPs reported attacks and abuses en route to a safe location hence it seems there is a need psycho-social support for victims due to the distress and trauma they faced. • Documentation : Many IDPs do not have any documentation. An effect of this that IDP children who do not have documentation could not attend secondary school.

• NFIs : IDPs in this location received NFI items from IRC nonetheless; distribution did not cover all households and newly displaced communities. • Cases of family separation and missing family members, including IDP families reporting that their relatives – including vulnerable individuals – are still in the area where IDPs are displaced from. There is currently little to no information flow on this issue. • No arrangements have been made to address the protection needs of unaccompanied and separated children, older persons, and persons with disabilities. • WASH: There are water tanks installed and water-tracking service by the regional government and other humanitarian actors is the only water source but it is still not enough to cater to the needs of IDPs. People practice open defecation because of absence of latrines, which might lead to different public health problems. • Livelihoods: Only a few men are able to engage in livelihood work but many IDP women lack livelihood opportunities because of the insecurity related to the generalized conflict situation. In the IDP sites the only available option for generating income is participating in daily labor. This option is only for men. Women don’t engage in daily work due to the cultural norms of the society. • Food: IDPs received two times food aid from WFP through DPPB; However IDPs mentioned that the Sorghum is nott he appropriate food item for the population according to the local habits

2. Kansah Dhere

Overview: Kan Sah Dhere is an informal site comprised entirely of temporary, scrapped- together shelters, which is housing IDPs from various places in Gogi zone of Oromia region. The site was created in 2016, since then IDPs continue to arrive in unspecified numbers. There are 1,006 IDPs accounted for at the site but many more IDPs seem to be presented and not accounted for. Information regarding the number of IDPs in site are acquired separately by the leaders of each IDP group. Major issues

• Food insecurity: IDPs mentioned they lack physical and economic access to sufficient and sustainable food to meet their dietary needs. However, IDPs in this site got one time food assistance from WFP. • Health: Lack of access to health care and medicine (including for pregnant women) is the main concern of IDPs in this location. IDPs reported severe health issues that are not being treated due to lack of access to health services in their areas of displacement and inability to otherwise to move to the nearby town for medical care because of financial and transportation challenges.

• WASH: Access to sufficient water is the major protection concern mentioned by the community. People additionally practice open defecation because of absence of latrine services, which might lead to different public health problems as well as GBV risks • People with specific needs such as pregnant and lactating mothers, elderly persons, and the sick are not given priority in terms of accessing services. • Safety concerns: The security situation is not reliable; community's movement from in and out of the site is very insecure due to the volatile security situation in the area and furthermore, the camp lacks light, which further worsen the security situation. • Shelter: People live in temporary shelters, which are constructed by local materials that will not protect them from the rain. Overcrowded conditions in the IDP sites and shelters have resulted in lack of privacy for women. This was mentioned in all sites. Most household’s shelters host from six to 10 people. Most of them mentioned that they could not sleep outside because they of the weather conditions. • Similar with other sites cases of family separation and missing family members, have been reported, including IDP families reporting that their relatives are still inside the conflict areas. There is currently little to no information flow on this issue. • KII have informed of movement of women and children to urban areas (Deka Town) in search of employment and livelihood opportunities. Concerns of abuse and exploitation were raised and need closer follow up. • NFI support is not sufficient despite the need. There was an one-time distribution including some jerry cans and kitchen sets by IRC in this site though it was not enough for all households. There are also significant needs for basic items such as clothing, mattresses, and blankets, as well as necessities such as food and water. 3. Dhungo

Overview: Dhungo is an informal site comprised entirely of temporary, makeshift shelters, which hosts IDPs from various places in Gogi zone of Oromia region. The site was established in September 2017 and is still receiving new IDPs. There are 3700 individuals and 750 households IDPs accounted for at the site but many more seem to be present and not accounted for. Major issues • An one-time food distribution took place by WFP in all IDP sites in Deka Suftu Woreda except Awobare. However, the quantity of the food distributed is not adequate to cover the needs of all IDPs and the needs of new arrivals are uncovered. No measures were taken in the time that the sites were visited, by the local authorities to respond to the new IDPs arriving in the site.

• Family separation is one of the protection concerns reported at the site, and IDP report that young children and people with disabilities were left behind because of displacement. • Trauma: Many people died because of this conflict causing feelings of insecurity and stress. IDPs report being traumatized due to the very nature of the displacement. • WASH: There are poor sanitation and hygiene conditions among the IDPs. There are no individual or communal latrines in either site and open defecation is common. There has been no distribution of sanitary and hygiene items to IDPs including for women and girls Due to lack of latrines, women reported safety concerns as they have to go to the bush for defection at nighttime in order to not to be seen by men in daylight. • GBV: Women and girls faced violence during displacement including kidnapping and verbal and sexual harassment. Most of the time parents in IDP sites do not have any income generation opportunities and this in turns forces them to push girls to marry in an early age. • Education: Due to the long distance from education facilities, many children are not attending school • Heath: Lack of health facilities is another aggravating factor that deteriorates the situation of these communities. Women deliver at home because of absence of a heath post within reasonable distance and additionally there is no pre-natal and anti-natal examination. • Child protection concerns: A number of separated children due to the conflict were reported and they are in the care of other family members. There was no registration conducted so the number of Unaccompanied and separated children is not known. • Shelter: People live in makeshift houses while others live in traditionally made houses which can’t accommodate a lot of people. In average 6 to 8 people are accommodated in a single shelter • Safety: The location where the IDPs are residing is close to a conflict zone(boarder area)

4. Horsed Overview: is an informal site comprised entirely of temporary erected makeshift shelters, which hosts IDPs from various places of Gogi zone of Oromia region, The IDP site is located near to Deka Suftu town, along the road to Filtu Woreda. This IDP site was created, in September 2017 as IDPs fled from their resident because of inter-boarder conflict. There are 1079 IDP households accounted for at the site but the statistics are only obtained separately from members/leaders of each IDP group and therefore cannot be verified.

Major issues • Health: IDPs in this site lack access to Health Services and as reported it mostly affects pregnant, and lactating women. Impediments to accessing health services include distance and costs.

• GBV: The incidence of GBV is still widely underreported even if there are some cases however, services for women and girls who have experienced violence were indicated to be insufficient. • There were significant needs for basic items such as clothing, mattresses, and blankets, as well as necessities such as food and water. But the main priority needs reported by IDPs relate to lack of clothing, food and livelihood opportunities • Due to lack of basic sanitation facilities, the IDPs had no option but to resort to defecation in open areas. As a result, females would wait until late evening/night-time to be able to use the open spaces for defecation, putting women and girls at risk of gender- based violence. • There is no electricity in the site and at night, the movement of people is very restricted, due to the possibility of natural hazards as the site is located inside a forest and it hosts wild animals. • Family separation is reported by IDPs at the site and IDPs report that young children and people with disabilities were left behind because of displacement. • The protection concerns identified in this IDP site are relatively less in comparison to other sites since the site is located near to the woreda Administration and it is accessible to receive different types of support from the government. However the economic condition of the IDP site is very weak similar to other IDP sites

5. Awobere

Overview: Awobare is an informal site comprised entirely of temporary shelters, which hosts IDPs from various place in Gogi zone of Oromia region The number of IDPs accounted for at the site are only obtained separately from members/leaders of each IDP group. It is reported that 3,000 individual and 600 household are in site but the numbers can not be confirmed officially.

Major issues  IDPs in this site claim to have, significantly less access to food and other humanitarian assistance than the IDPs in other location within the Deka Suftu Woreda.  Food: No food aid has been provided to these IDPs from formal sectors both government and humanitarian actors, however food aid is provided by the host community. Currently, most of the IDPs don't have any means of income as they were pastoralists and they lost their cattle during displacement  Child protection: There is a disruption of school attendance due to lack of schools, as they used to attain school in their place of origin. The displacement interrupts their education, there are no play areas and there is a lot of insecurity, because of the conflict. There are separated children in the site but no indication regarding their numbers.

 WASH: The IDPs in this community have limited access to water because the birka, which was used by the community to accumulate water for the dry season, has small capacity. Due to that the community is forced to collect water from a very far distance nearly 15 KM. The lack of water was the main need identified by IDPs in the site. There is a complete absence of latrines in the area and as a result, there is a practice of open defection. The community didn’t identify any protection risks that could be associated with the distance from the closest water point or the lack of latrines on site  There are no specialized services available for children and IDP community to address the health of psychosocial needs of the most vulnerable IDPs  Shelter: Most of the shelters do not provide sufficient protection against weather conditions and there is not sufficient space for basic household activities.  The location where the IDPs are residing is close to the boarders with Oromia and with the on-going conflict, IDPs feel insecure. They are under extreme stress and fear due to their inability to move to a secure place where they can live without fear and find easy access to the basic services.  The movement of the IDPs is restricted with the local authorities preventing them from moving to another location in search of water and safety. IDPs mentioned that, the lack of freedom of movement has impacted their lives since it not only limits their ability to flee to a safer location but furthermore impedes their ability to secure a sustainable livelihood and to access humanitarian assistance

6. Galun Overview: Galun is an informal site comprised entirely of temporary shelters, which accommodates IDPs from various places in Gogi zone of Oromia region There are 3365 IDPs accounted for at the site but many more IDPs seem to be present and not accounted for. Information regarding the number of people at site were collected by each leader of the community since there is no registration exercise done yet and therefore the numbers of the population are indicative. Major issues

 Child protection: As a result of conflict, many children are separated from their families and are currently living with their relatives There is no accurate information regarding the exact number of children.  Education: Children have access to education. The community constructed a temporary classroom while the government supported with a teacher.  Safety: There is no light at all and movement off the site is always at daytime, since they fear for wild animals at night time. Otherwise, the security situation is good and stable; community's movement in and out of the site is free with no restriction.

 There is no consideration or special care arrangement for vulnerable community groups, particularly for pregnant mothers, people with disabilities, elders, and orphans.  Health: Women deliver at home, because of the absence of heath post available so they do not have pre-natal and anti-natal visits . Distance is the major impediment for IDPs to access health service since IDPs should travel 40 km to get the nearest health service, which is located in Deka Suftu town.  The communities want to use the firewood as a mean of income but the government does not allow them to cut the trees for conservation reasons.  GBV: People lost their domestic animals and their belongings and the majority of the women are widowers and therefore exposed to risks like harassment and forced marriage for inheritance reasons. Their culture gives priority to the deceased family to inherit the wife and while some women accept the decision of the family, others show resistance and therefore lose the support of the rest of the family

 WASH: There are no latrines on site and it is obvious that there is a practice of open defecation. Lack of sanitary materials for women of reproductive age was also mentioned in this site since most of the women do not have access to sanitary pads during menstruation period.  NFIs: Shortage of none-food items like clothes is another challenge mentioned.

Conclusions This report refers to a rapid site assessment exercise reflecting the major protection issues and emerging humanitarian needs of the displaced population from Oromia region in Deka Suftu woreda. The displacement, which started two years back and intensified since September 2017 has certainly provided the grounds for the launch of humanitarian interventions. Being rapid in nature, there are certain areas, which require further investigation to devise most comprehensive response plan by the humanitarian agencies . The influx of IDPs continues with unspecified magnitude. The findings of this assessment also highlight that food insecurity and lack of income generating opportunities are among the most serious challenges that the IDPs are facing.  Women, children, and elderly are the most vulnerable IDP groups in terms of access to health services due to natural and social barriers.  In all FGDs, food, livelihood, and durable shelter were mentioned as the main concerns of the affected populations.  In all sites, it was reported that IDPs rely on village/ site leaders and/or community committees to solve disputes, and to report any safety and protection issues, including sexual violence. They rely on this structure for protection, mediation and reporting of such cases.  The majority of IDP communities live in temporary housing that often does not provide adequate protection against the weather elements. Heavy rains alone are able to damage and destroy these temporary dwellings. These dwellings are often not waterproofed with residents lacking nylon or plastic sheets with which to protect their homes from rains.

 In most IDP sites, it was reported that the relationship between IDP community and host communities is peaceful and supportive; in most areas, the host communities are willing to support IDP communities through different mechanisms including sharing food items and water resources.  All IDP sites have no latrines and practice open defecation, which will, in turn, affect their health status and can potentially increase GBV risks  Lack of health facilities is a major provoking situation; women additionally deliver at home with no proper monitoring, follow up and/or medication.  Regarding humanitarian assistance provided in the IDPs, IRC assisted some communities by providing household kits in specific IDP sites but limited in terms of targets and on the other hand, IOM, distributed shelter kits to some communities.  In most IDP sites, it is mentioned that communities do not know about services available to them and where to report when problems happen.  80 % of the IDP families are currently staying in a public land which is separated from the host community  In all sites, it was reported that IDPs do not have ID cards from the Kebele they are settling or from the place they were originally displaced. Therefore, the IDP’s registration process has to be initiated to protect their right to assistance and access to humanitarian services.

Recommendations Based on the findings of this assessment the assessment team makes the following recommendations:  The current situation of IDPs demands a comprehensive and well-integrated response by addressing the above-mentioned protection concerns. However, the immediate needs identified through the assessment are food, WASH, Protection, psychosocial support and health care, which should be addressed on a priority basis.  Shelter: To address the fragility of the respondents’ shelters, essential shelter kits should be provided. These kits could include blankets, bedding, mosquito nets, and plastic sheets that many FGD participants indicated they were lacking.  WASH: Construction of communal gender sensitive latrines to avoid widespread of diseases and mitigate the risk of GBV  Provision of dignity kits to women and girls of reproductive age.  Establishment of site protection committees or focal points or safety groups (comprised of both women and men) to promote responsibilities in ensuring sites are safe for women and girls as well to tackle the safety issues reported in some of the sites. Additionally the committees can support communities to develop a list of most vulnerable families and children to prioritize access to services  Psychosocial Support Services: Urgent need for psychosocial support services for traumatized IDPs in general.

 Family Tracing: Systematic registration and family tracing must be conducted for all separated and unaccompanied children as well as missing/abducted family members. Strengthen the family tracing and reunification system by involving more actors who can contribute to a quicker response  Relevant actors to ensure timely health/medical response, psychosocial, safety/security and legal/justice response for IDP survivors.  Mainstream protection principles across all sectors to ensure that associated protection issues are identified and responded during service delivery.  Strengthening information sharing: Inform all sectors on the findings of different assessment results to be able to better respond to protection issues during service delivery. Expand similar protection field missions to cover other affected regions.  Provide unconditional cash assistance for protection reasons focusing on persons with specific critical needs representing an immediate risk to life and health, for which there are no immediate alternative solutions and where a specific cash injection can address or mitigate the risk of the need at hand .  Food insecurity: is prevalent in all IDP sites and requires immediate attention from concerning Humanitarian actors. In addition food distribution and aid programme for IDPs should be culturally appropriate that considers the local custom of the displaced community.  Reinforce the establishment of a referral mechanism with the objective of informing IDP communities, organizations/agencies, at woreda and district level, about the availability of services provided by different agencies in their respective geographical areas and ensure that IDPs (including women and children) have access to services provided by members’ agencies through the referral mechanism.