World Food Programme and Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services

El Nino food security impact in Milne Bay Papua New Guinea May 2016 Produced by WFP in support of National Disaster Center and the Government of Papua New Guinea Interagency Assessment Conducted by WFP/IOM/UC PNG/ MBPDES World Food Programme / Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services The impact of the 2015/16 El Nino on food security in Milne Bay Province KEY MESSAGES

From April 22nd - 26th 2016, the World Food Programme (WFP) in close consultation with the Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services Coordinator (MBPDESC), Ward Councilors, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the United Church of ⛳♍ PNG (Church Partnership Programme) conducted an interagency field assessment to examine the impact of the 2015/16 El Niño on food security and livelihoods in Milne Bay Province. WFP and partners carried out the survey in 8 LLGs and 46 wards, which MBPDES and NDC in 2015 classified as experiencing very severe or extreme drought conditions (NDC categories 4 and 5). A total of 161 questionnaires were completed with feedback from these affected communities, using tools developed by WFP to collect food security indicators at the community level. The findings are comparable and complementary to the nationwide mobile phone survey that WFP and NDC carried out earlier this year during January and February. In addition, based on field reports, MBPDES assessed an additional 6 LLGs (68 wards) and compared the general findings with results of the quantitive survey conducted in the selected 8 LLGs to derive at an overall estimate of needs for the Milne Bay Province.

Drought has severely impacted food security in the majority of the Local Level Governments (LLGs) assessed, affecting an estimated total of 77,770 people - out of Milne Bay Province’s total population of 282,000 (MBP, 2015 census). The 77,770 estimate is a compound of two numbers: 51,612 people who are facing extreme food shortages as determined by the quantitive survey undertaken in 8 LLGs by WFP and partners and a further 26,158 people who were identified by MPBDES based on field reports in 6 LLGs. Communities in these areas are facing severe or extreme food shortages.

Supply of food in local markets is limited, and prices of most locally produced staples have increased significantly. Prices of imported rice have increased but not significantly.

Almost two-thirds of the households with children interviewed reported sick child in their household. Of these, commonly reported illnesses include diarrhea, respiratory illness, malaria and skin infections.

Water stress emerged in virtually all areas assessed as a primary issue of concern, specifically a marked lack of drinking water; water sources (wells) have dried up and there has been insufficient water in most communities for washing and maintaining gardens.

The MBPDES should be commended for the significant efforts to use available resources at the provincial level to deliver food to the most acutely affected communities in late 2015 and early 2016. However, due to resource limitations this assistance was not adequate to mitigate the impacts of the drought on food security in most areas.

Produced by : 2 World Food Programme / Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services

INTRODUCTION

Since April 2015, Papua New Guinea (PNG) has been population is spread broadly across over 160 severely impacted by the effects of a severe global, atolls/smaller islands, many of which are highly ongoing, El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event. isolated and lack mobile phone network The last time the country was hit by a disaster of coverage and electricity. The province covers similar scale was during the 1997/98 El Nino, which 14,345 km2 of land and 252,990 km2 of sea, at its peak affected an estimated 1.24 million people with a total of 600 islands located therein. - of which 260,000 were classified as critically food insecure (national assessment). In Milne Bay province in particular, 79,882 people were estimated to be As such, and based on continuous reports of affected by El Niño in December 1997, some 50% of food insecurity in Milne Bay Province , the the population.1 MPBDESC in April 2016 requested that WFP and Given the ongoing drought conditions, the NDC partners conduct a follow-up survey to better conducted a nationwide assessment in January- assess the state of food insecurity in the February 2016, with support from the World Food province. Programme (WFP). The assessment was done through a mobile phone survey conducted with the The initial assessment conducted by the NDC in mobile operator Digicel PNG, using WFP’s mobile September 2015 identified Milne Bay as an area Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (mVAM) survey of critical concern. Subsequent reports received techniques. Based on this assessment, almost 1.5 by the Milne Bay Provincial Disaster million people were identified as severely impacted Coordinator’s office as early as April 2016 by acute food insecurity, of which 162,000 were highlighted critical food and water shortages in considered to be extremely food insecure and small and remote island communities. Of these subsequently targeted for emergency food communities, those living in coral atolls were assistance. particularly affected and requested assistance. The subsequent reports have been ongoing. Despite providing nationwide data on the impact of El-Nino on food security, one of the limitations of the This report presents the findings of the field mVAM survey was that it did not succeed in assessment, conducted as a follow-up to the classifying food insecurity in locations where mobile mVAM assessment to further explore food coverage and mobile access is low. This affected the insecurity in Milne Bay Province. The report will results in areas like Milne Bay Province, where the provide a presentation of the following:

1. Methodology 2. Food security impact 3. Health and hygiene impact 4. Markets prices and livelihoods 5. Assistance provided

______1Allen Jonathan, The El Niño Drought: an Overview of the Milne Bay Experience, Provincial Disaster Office, Milne Bay Administration, Photo 1 – Failed Kaukau (sweet potato) crop, Liluta ward, Kiriwana LLG (Photo: Venkat Alotau, Milne Bay Province, PNG. Dheeravath/ WFP) Produced by : 3 World Food Programme / Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services

METHODOLOGY 161 Household interviews The data in this assessment was collected through 8 LLGs covered a series of field visits. A total of 46 wards were visited in 8 LLGs. Milne Bay Provincial Disaster 16 Islands visited Coordination and Administration identified an 46 Wards visited additional 68 wards in 6 LLGs through field reports. These wards however were not visited by the assessment teams. Households and community questionnaires were administered in 46 wards from April 22nd – 26th, 2016.

Three teams were deployed to cover the Trobriand Islands, the North Coast of mainland Milne Bay (Rabaraba) and the Calvados Group of Islands in the Samarai-Murua Electorate. Milne Bay provincial officers including agriculture, fisheries, and rural development, ward counsellors participated and supported the mission. The assessment was conducted through community group discussion and visiting of Map 2 - Geographic distribution of field visits planting areas. WFP Food Security tools were used to collect the food security indicators at the The survey was divided into three sections, with community and household level, and the questions relating to: assessment also focused on what relief supplies 1 - Overall community food security situation had been provided to date. A total of 46 severely 2 - Household-level food security experience drought affected wards (16 out of 31 islands) 3 - Aid assistance received until now were visited during this assessment. Questions on the overall community food security situation were used to identify the level of food security impact in each ward, based on the same methodology used previously in the January – February 2016 mVAM analysis. Subsequently, questions on household-level food security indicators were used to capture how respondents were experiencing and coping with food insecurity at the household level.

A comparative analysis of household-level and overall community-level experiences of food insecurity was conducting using responses from community and household questionnaires. This Map 1 – MPDEC-NDC Map identifying drought- enabled the assessment team to verify the affected communities in Milne Bay Province consistency of reported experiences at both levels, facilitating the identification of locations where food insecurity was identified as an urgent and severe issue. Produced by : 4 World Food Programme / Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services

FOOD SECURITY IMPACT A total of 77,770 people are currently exposed to acute food insecurity in the LLGs that have Food security phase classification been identified in this assessment. The table below lists the LLGs in Milne Bay Using the same food security impact Province that are most-affected by extreme classification as applied in the nationwide food shortages and require immediate, life- mVAM assessment (low, moderate, high or saving assistance. severe food security impact), nearly all of the 46 wards assessed indicated an extremely high LLGs Affected Population level of food insecurity. Details on the Bwanabwana Rural 6,501 classification method are provided in Annex 2. Daga Rural 1,890 Dobu Rural 1,943 3 High food security impact Goodenough 6,812 Huhu Rural 1,891

4 Severe food security impact Kiriwana 14,297 Louisiade 6,680 79% Wards identified as Makamaka 8,466 Maramatana 6,364 Highly or Severely Food Murua Rural 5,749 Insecure Suau Rural 1,366

In keeping with the observations and records of Weraura 7,429 the MBPDES, a large proportion of the wards West Ferguson Rural 3,130 classified as highly or severely food insecure are Yeleyamba 5,252 located in small islands throughout the provinces, particularly those classified as coral Table 1 - LLGs and their populations requiring atolls. Secondary sources have indicated that humanitarian assistance. Population census was these areas have been affected for over a generated by Milne Bay provincial authorities in decade by declining soil fertility, which likely late 2015. has been further compounded by population pressures in these areas. Underlying factors, such as population growth, poor soil, long dry spells, and recurrent natural In addition, the exposure of some of these shocks are likely to have aggravated the islands – particularly those in Samarai-Murua impacts of the El-Nino induced drought in the district - to extreme weather, most recently LLGs indicated above. It should be emphasized Cyclone Ita (2014), has also contributed to that populations, particularly in the LLGs periodic crop losses, most notably that of sago consisting of small inhabited islands, are highly palm, which takes approximately 15 years to vulnerable to food insecurity. High risk groups, mature prior to cultivation. such as women, children, and the elderly, are likely most exposed to the negative impacts of food shortages across these zones.

Produced by : 5 World Food Programme / Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services

Fatalities reported Specifically: Over 17% of respondents reported that some people in their community had died as a direct • 80% of communities reported extreme food consequence of the drought. Despite fewer shortages communities reporting deaths as a result of the drought, the number of reported deaths in the • 86% of communities reported that many or all community assessed was extraordinarily high in people in the community were suffering from comparison to the previous assessment - 4.48 hunger (60% many, 35% all) people (April 2016) in comparison to 2.4 (Jan-Feb 2016). Reports of drought-related deaths were • 54% of communities reported that all households highest in the Louisiade and Kiriwina LLGs. in the community were unable to produce any crops

As figures of reported deaths have not been • 60% of communities responded that there was verified and are based on the interpretations of no staple food supply available in their nearest community members, these numbers should be market interpreted and used with caution. However, this indicator can be used as an indication of locations that may require prioritisation for the delivery of food assistance.

Community perceptions of food security

Community questionnaires were administered through group discussions and discussions with ward councilors. Community members were asked about their perceptions of food security issues affecting the community at large through a series of 12 targeted questions covering issues such as food and water supply, levels of hunger, food consumption habits and market prices.

Figure 1 - Word cloud of the words most frequently used by respondents when asked about the general food situation in their community.

Produced by : 6 World Food Programme / Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services

Food insecurity experiences at the household Level

In each community visited, 4 households were randomly selected and were assessed using questions regarding their experiences and coping mechanisms related to food insecurity at the household level.

These responses distinctly represent the overall finding that the areas assessed in Milne Bay are enduring the impacts of very high and prolonged levels of food insecurity. Results were particularly striking in Kiriwina, Louisiade, and other islands in the Samarai-Murua electorate. No significant differences in food security outcomes was found between male and female-headed households.

● Over 96% of households reported going to bed hungry ● Over 98% of households reported eating fewer meals daily, eating smaller meals, and resorting to non-typical foods that they had no other choice but to eat. ● 56% of households interviewed stated that they had no food to eat of any kind. ● An alarming 75% of households responded that they had gone whole day and night without eating.

Figure 2 – Household Food Security Indicators - disaggregated by question

Produced by : 7 World Food Programme / Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services

HEATLH & HYGIENE IMPACT

In addition to a focus on food security, 65% of respondents reported drying up of water communities and households were also asked to sources. Village respondents indicated that: share their experiences regarding other adverse • existing wells and (rain-fed) water tanks had impacts of the drought, such as the impact of the dried up; drought on children’s health and incidence of • during high tide, open wells are sickness. contaminating with sea water;

• villagers were travelling as far as neighbouring Out of the 161 respondents, 148 of these island to access drinking water (Wagifa, households had children. Amongst the households Nimowa Islands); with children, nearly two-thirds (65%) described • people resorted to digging shallow wells in dry recent or current sickness of children within the river channels and creeks and accessing water household. Commonly described sicknesses from unhygienic sources, such as swamps affecting children included diarrhea, cough, (Goodenough LLG). malaria and skin diseases (scabies and rashes). A number of communities linked the prevalence of skin conditions to the lack of clean and available fresh (non-salt) water to maintain proper hygiene practices.

In further discussions, communities also expressed concern for vulnerable members of the community, such as the elderly, disabled persons, and widows, who were often unable to eat regularly.

Access to Water Figure 3: Communities that reported extreme water shortages

In addition to reports of food shortages and high Critical water shortages have clearly impacted prevalence of child sickness, water stress - both livelihoods, consider especially that sago is a core lack of drinking water and contamination of water staple in the Milne Bay area. Over a third of sources – was raised, repeatedly, as an issue of communities (37%) identified sago as a main food concern for the communities visited. item. Sago processing is extremely water- intensive, and the subsequent impact of the drought on agricultural livelihoods and production in the island of Milne bay has been considerable.

Produced by : 8 World Food Programme / Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services

MARKET PRICES & LIVELIHOODS

In Milne Bay Province, markets play a central role in INCREASE IN RICE VS. MAIN the daily life of population groups living in the area, STAPLE PRICES as agricultural production is limited in comparison to

other regions of PNG. As a result, islanders will often 5.89

supplement production from subsistence gardens 5.83 5.44 with staple foods and imported foods, such as rice, obtained through trading of fish and seafood across

islands. 3.51

In the assessed LLGs, the majority of livelihoods are mixed: a combination of fishing, hunting, garden crops, and cash-based livelihoods such as mining. In total, over 94% of people indicated that income stemming from these livelihoods were affected. It should be noted that although fishing livelihoods S T A P L E S T A P L E R I C E R I C E have not been significantly impacted by the P R I C E - P R I C E - P R I C E - P R I C E - drought, secondary impacts are evident due to the NOW BEFORE NOW BEFORE scarcity of main staples in local markets, thereby reducing the ratio of available staples to fish in Figure 4: Staple price increases in comparison to these small-scale trading economies. increases in rice prices.

An analysis of community feedback indicates that while the prices of main staples have increased drastically, prices for imported foods, such as rice, have increased only marginally (Figure 4).

Map 3 - Primary staple crop, by LLG.

Produced by : 9 World Food Programme / Milne Bay Provincial Disaster and Emergency Services

ASSISTANCE PROVIDED

The Milne Bay Provincial Office has been highly Less than half of households reported that they had resourceful in providing assistance to the region, received some for of assistance (Figure 5). Of those who despite resource limitations. Distributions were had received assistance, the majority of respondents (89 conducted to provide emergency food and water percent) said it had been provided by the Government. rations to several areas in the province in late The remaining assistance was provided by wantok (local 2015 and in early 2016. Despite these efforts, communities), churches, and NGOs. During the resource constraints have prevented continuity assessment, team members noticed that across Islands and scale in food assistance within the province. and wards the distribution of supplies were not equal, in As a result, food security has continued to some cases small donations (i.e. 1 kg per household) deteriorate in some areas as a result of El Nino. would have had a limited impact.

“Last assistance received was 3 cups of rice last year that served a single meal. No food at the moment, and the situation is only expected to improve in six months time”

Wagifa1 Ward, GOODENOUGH_ISLAND_RURAL LLG, Milne Bay Province.

Figure 5: Communities that reported receiving food assistance in the past 3 months

Received government assistance

Map 4 - LLGs in which households reported that some type of assistance had been provided in their community the past 3 months Produced by : 10 World Food Programme / National Disaster Centre

ANNEX 1 Questionnaire

Produced by : 11 National Disaster Centre

Produced by : 12 National Disaster Centre

Produced by : 13 National Disaster Centre

Produced by : 14 World Food Programme / National Disaster Centre

ANNEX 2 Conditional food security phase classification Three community-level criteria were used to they were not suffering from hunger and were not classify each ward into one of four food security consuming famine foods, the phase classification impact phases (low, moderate, high and severe). obtained through criteria 1 (above) was downgraded by one phase. Conversely, if the Criteria 1: The food supply situation, as reported majority of respondents reported suffering from by the majority of respondents in each ward. For hunger and consuming famine foods, that ward’s example, If the majority of respondents in a given phase classification was increased by one phase. ward said the food supply in their community was sufficient, that ward was classified as phase 1. If Criteria 3: The number of deaths in the community the majority said there were some shortages, the reported by respondents. If the average number of LLG was classified as phase 2 or 3, and if the deaths reported by respondents in a category 3 majority said there were extreme shortages, it was classified as phase 3 or 4. ward was 5 people or more, then that ward was increased to phase 4. Conversely, if the average Criteria 2: The number of households suffering number of deaths reported in a phase 4 ward was from hunger and consuming famine foods in each lower than 5, that ward was downgraded to phase ward. If the majority of respondents reported 3. Number of deaths did not affect the classification that of phase 1 and 2 wards.

Figure 6 - “Decision-tree” used to create the conditional phase classification.

Produced by : 15 World Food Programme / National Disaster Centre

ANNEX 3: Consolidated affected Population by Ward/Atolls

NDC/MBP mVAM_ Affected Dsitrct LLG Small Islands/Wards Type Remarks DES_CAT CAT population* NO 1Alotau Maramatana Topura 5 3 660main land/coastal Verified and assessed by mVAM 2Alotau Maramatana Ginada 5 3 300main land/coastal Verified and assessed by mVAM 3Alotau Maramatana Lavora 5 - 514main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 4Alotau Maramatana Iapoa No. 1 5 - 195main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 5Alotau Maramatana Wamawamana 5 - 476main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 6Alotau Maramatana Taupota 5 - 1078main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 7Alotau Maramatana Iapoa No. 2 5 - 837main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 8Alotau Maramatana Huhuna 5 - 793main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 9Alotau Maramatana Guga 5 - 668main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 10 Alotau Maramatana East Cape 5 - 764main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 11 Alotau Maramatana Iabam/Pahilele 5 - 79main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 12 Alotau Makamaka Mukawa 5 3 726main land/coastal Verified and assessed by mVAM 13 Alotau Makamaka Bogaboga 5 3 539main land/coastal Verified and assessed by mVAM 14 Alotau Makamaka Irikaba 5 3 469main land/coastal Verified and assessed by mVAM 15 Alotau Makamaka Dabora 5 3 318main land/coastal Verified and assessed by mVAM 16 Alotau Makamaka Midino 5 - 472main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 17 Alotau Makamaka Tapio 5 - 323main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 18 Alotau Makamaka Menapi 5 - 482main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 19 Alotau Makamaka Koiyabagira 5 - 614main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 20 Alotau Makamaka Biniguni 5 - 547main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 21 Alotau Makamaka Pumani 5 - 662main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 22 Alotau Makamaka Pem 5 - 392main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 23 Alotau Makamaka Magabara 5 - 328main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 24 Alotau Makamaka Ginada 5 - 286main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 25 Alotau Makamaka Wabubu 5 - 313main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 26 Alotau Makamaka Banapa 5 - 278main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 27 Alotau Makamaka Pora 5 - 162main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 28 Alotau Makamaka Abuaro 5 - 326main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 29 Alotau Makamaka Giwa 5 - 757main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 30 Alotau Makamaka Bai'awa 5 - 472main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 31 Alotau Suau Rural Bonabona Is 5 3 401outer Island Interveiwed LLG President and Area Manager in POM 32 Alotau Suau Rural Suau Is 5 3 615outer Island Interveiwed LLG President and Area Manager in POM 33 Alotau Suau Rural Bonarua Is 5 3 150outer Island Interveiwed LLG President and Area Manager in POM 34 Alotau Suau Rural Baibaisiga 5 3 200outer Island Interveiwed LLG President and Area Manager in POM 35 Alotau Weraura Dombosaina 5 3 665main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 36 Alotau Weraura Awawa 5 3 426main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 37 Alotau Weraura Vidya 5 - 695main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 38 Alotau Weraura Sirisiri 5 - 708main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 39 Alotau Weraura Uga 5 - 362main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 40 Alotau Weraura Divari 5 - 687main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 41 Alotau Weraura Kwabunaki 5 - 265main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 42 Alotau Weraura Rumaruma 4 - 562main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 43 Alotau Weraura Wedau 4 - 895main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 44 Alotau Weraura Ikara 4 - 669main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 45 Alotau Weraura Warawadidi 4 - 588main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 46 Alotau Weraura Bowadi 4 - 560main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 47 Alotau Weraura Pova 4 - 347main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 48 KIRIWINA Kiriwana Kawa 4 4 310outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Konia 4 49 4 294outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Munuwata 4 50 5 396outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Kuyawa 4 51 5 500outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Vakuta 4 52 5 2052outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Kaibola 4 53 5 904outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Dayagila 4 54 5 585outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Mwatawa 4 55 5 1273outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Sinaketa 4 56 5 1409outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Loya 4 57 5 1174outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM KIRIWINA Kiriwana Liluta 4 58 5 2178outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM

Produced by : 16 World Food Programme / National Disaster Centre

ANNEX 3: Consolidated affected Population by Ward/Atolls

NDC/MBP mVAM_ Affected No Dsitrct LLG Small Islands/Wards Type Remarks DES_CAT CAT population*

59 KIRIWINA Goodenough Kalimutabutabu 5 3 848 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 60 KIRIWINA Goodenough Wagifa 5 3 1446 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 61 KIRIWINA Goodenough Awale 5 3 645 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 62 KIRIWINA Goodenough Diodio 5 3 1475 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 63 KIRIWINA Goodenough Abolu 5 3 1247 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 64 KIRIWINA Goodenough Utalo 5 3 1151 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 65 KIRIWINA Kiriwana Okaikoda 5 4 1262 outer Island Interveiwed Ward Counsoler in Kiriwana 66 KIRIWINA Kiriwana Yalaka 5 4 1960 outer Island Interveiwed Ward Counsoler in Kiriwana 67 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade West Panaeati Island 5 3 948 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 68 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade East Panaeati Island 5 1140 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 69 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade Brooker Island 5 3 667 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 70 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade Panapompom Island 5 3 806 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 71 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade West Motorina Island 5 3 335 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 72 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade East Motorina Island 5 471 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 73 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade Panaumala Island 5 3 522 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 74 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade Bagaman Island 5 3 422 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 75 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade Kimuta Island 5 3 814 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 76 SAMARAI MURUA Louisiade Renard Is 5 - 555 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 77 SAMARAI MURUA Murua Rural Iwa Is 5 3 670 outer Island Interveiwed Ward Counsoler in Kiriwana 78 SAMARAI MURUA Yeleyamba Nimoa Island 5 3 322 outer Island Verified and assessed by mVAM 79 SAMARAI MURUA Yeleyamba Sabra Island 5 3 1415 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 80 SAMARAI MURUA Yeleyamba Grass Island 5 3 1162 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 81 SAMARAI MURUA Yeleyamba Western Point 5 3 645 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 82 SAMARAI MURUA Yeleyamba Rehuwo 5 3 963 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 83 SAMARAI MURUA Yeleyamba N'Jaru 5 3 745 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 84 SAMARAI MURUA Murua Rural Kwaiawata Is 5 3 575 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 85 SAMARAI MURUA Murua Rural Gawa Is 5 3 850 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 86 SAMARAI MURUA Murua Rural Mwadau Is 5 3 370 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 87 SAMARAI MURUA Murua Rural Nasikwabu Is 5 3 316 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 88 SAMARAI MURUA Murua Rural Budibudi Atolls 5 3 252 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 89 SAMARAI MURUA Murua Rural Amphelt Atolls 5 3 2216 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 90 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Ware Atolls 5 3 1315 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 91 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Baibeisiga 5 3 210 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 92 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Sawasawaga 4 3 830 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 93 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Anagusa Island 4 3 150 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 94 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Tewatewa Island 4 3 100 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 95 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Dawson Island 4 3 265 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 96 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Tubetube Island 4 3 612 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 97 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Kwaraiwa Island 4 3 560 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 98 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Hamama 4 - 1088 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 99 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Tegorauan 4 - 650 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 100 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Gigia 4 - 255 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 101 SAMARAI MURUA Bwanabwana Rural Simagahi 4 - 466 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 102 SAMARAI MURUA Murua Rural Yanaba 5 - 500 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 103 Esa'ala Dobu Rural Sanaroa 3 - 1203 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 104 Esa'ala Dobu Rural Nade 3 - 740 outer Island not assessed; impact would be similar to that of outer Islands 105 Esa'ala West Ferguson Rural Fayayana 3 - 866 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 106 Esa'ala West Ferguson Rural Ailuluai 3 - 745 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 107 Esa'ala West Ferguson Rural Ukeokeo 3 - 957 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 108 Esa'ala West Ferguson Rural Toagesi 3 - 562 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 109 Alotau Daga Rural Danawan 4 - 732 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 110 Alotau Daga Rural Biman 4 - 210 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 111 Alotau Daga Rural Eviaua 4 - 388 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 112 Alotau Daga Rural Gwiroro 4 - 560 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 113 Alotau Huhu Rural Walalaia 4 - 775 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC 114 Alotau Huhu Rural Bou 4 - 1116 main land/coastal not assessed, verified by secondary data reports by MBPDESC Total 77770 Notes 1. Data was provided by Milne Bay Provincial Disaster Co-ordinator (Mr Steven Tobessa). 2. Assessments were conducted in mid-October 2015 and recent letters, and reports from Janury to April 2016. 3. Population census was generated by Milne Bay provincial authorities in late 2015.

Produced by : 17