E stimate number of IDP s and R eturnees by C ounty Published: 19 July 2019 DisplacemenSOUTHt Tracking Matrix M SUDANobility Tracking Round 5 IOM DISPLACEMENT

o TRACKING MATRIX y n a Mobility Tracking Round 5 M Renk Sudan

Melut

Malakal Fashoda Maban Abyei Pariang Lon Abiemnhom Baliet goc Panyikang huk Aweil North Rubkona

Aweil East t

i Twic M u U

G Canal/Pigi Aweil West ay Fangak la om n g Luakpiny/Nasir t Raja Aweil South u Koch Nyirol iw Ethiopia Gogrial WestGogrial East a M Aweil Centre Ayod Tonj North r

e

e J Mayendit L u r R iv e Tonj East r Duk Akobo P Uror Rumbek North a n y i j Wau i a Twic East r Cueibet Rumbek Centre

h Pochalla

t

u o

S Yirol East

Central African Republic j

n Rumbek East o Nagero T Bor South Yirol West Pibor Wulu Aw a erial r

Tambura a z

Assessed locations N Mvolo Terekeka IDPs since 2014 Estimates returnees from Returnees since 2016: M Lafon Kapoeta North within South Sudan u Mundri East from within South Sudan n Kapoeta East d Ezo r Estimated returnees from Ibba Maridi i Returnees since 2016: W

from abroad e abroad o

i s t b Juba State m

a Y Kapoeta South Yei County Torit La in Budi y Kilometers a Kenya Ik 0 25 50 100 150 200 Democratic Republic of Congo ot Kajo-keji Magwi os Disclaimer: This map is for illustration Morobo purposes only. Names and boundaries on this map do not imply official Uganda dorsement or acceptance by IOM.

52,268 IDPs 534,082 returnees: 39% from abroad arrived Jan-March 2019 since R-ARCSS (Sept 2018 – March 2019)

1,420,189 IDPs 1,183,683 returnees: 36% from abroad currently present since 2014 currently present, with arrivals since 2016 KEY FINDINGS 5 counties accounting 5 counties accounting for • Increase in the monthly average of for most IDP arrivals returnees in the three months following most returnee arrivals the revitalised peace agreement Jan-Mar 2019 since R-ARCSS (R-ARCSS) but declining trend in the first quarter of 2019. • Jur River: 8,343 • Luakpiny / Nasir: 88,044 • The average percentage of returnees • Tonj North: 4,795 • Wau: 49,017 from abroad per period of analysis pre- • Magwi: 3,555 • Terekeka: 23,041 R-ARCSS was 37%, increasing to 41% • Fashoda: 3,234 • Akobo: 19,077 Sept-Dec 2018 (post-R-ARCSS). • Mundri East: 3,206 • Jur River: 16,231 • Over 50,000 IDPs arrived in assessed accounting for 44% of the accounting for 37% of the caseload areas in the first quarter of 2019 (77% caseload displaced in this period returned since the agreement primary displacement)

DTM IS SUPPORTED BY For more information please contact [email protected] or visit displacement.iom.int/south-sudan 1 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5

BACKGROUND

Data collection for Mobility Tracking Round 5 took place in March 2019. In order to identify possible changes in displacement and return dynamics as a consequence of the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS), DTM disaggregated returnee arrival periods by the following periods: 2016 and 2017; 2018 pre R-ARCSS (January – mid- September 2018); 2018 post R-ARCSS (mid-September 2018 – December 2018) and January – March 2019. Whilst national-level conflict has continued in certain areas of South Sudan, notably around Yei County in Central State, some parts of the country have faced rising instances of intercommunal conflict, which are distinguished from conflict including national actors for the purposes of the DTM data collection exercise. However, the lines between cattle raiding, other forms of communal tensions and politically motivated violence have at times become blurred as described in the below section on internal displacement. Mobility tracking aims to quantify the presence of internally displaced persons (IDPs), returnees and relocated individuals across South Sudan in displacement sites and host communities, updated in regular intervals to identify and track mobility dynamics over time. This summary represents findings for the fifth round of Mobility Tracking, conducted in South Sudan through key-informant based assessments at sub-area and location levels. METHODOLOGY The methodology comprises two interrelated tools: baseline area assessments, and multi-sectoral location assessments. 1. Baseline area assessments provide information on the presence of targeted populations in defined administrative sub-areas (following roughly the 10-state payam system), and capture information at the group level on population categories (IDPs, returnees, relocated) and attributes such as time of arrival of the target population in the assessed location, return from abroad or South Sudan, reasons for displacement and former home areas for IDPs (both captured on majority basis), presence of and dates of displacement / return, and shelter conditions. The baseline area assessment form also comprises a list of locations (defined as villages / neighbourhoods / displacement sites) hosting displaced and/ or returned populations. 2. Multi-sectoral location assessments at village / neighbourhood or site level are conducted to gather data on a more granular level, comprising sectors such as Health, WASH, S/NFI, Protection, FSL and Education. The objective of the location level assessments is to collect some key multisectoral indicators on the living conditions and needs of affected populations which can enable partners to prioritize locations for more in-depth sector-specific assessments.

Key Informants: 4,994 individuals Information is obtained and triangulated through consultation with key informants, commonly comprised of local authorities, community leaders, religious leaders and humanitarian partners. In round 5, DTM consulted 4,994 key informants, of whom 1,395 at the sub-area level and 3,599 at the location level (neighbourhood, village or displacement site). Direct observation at each location in addition to the triangulation and the subsequent verification process serves to further ensure maximum accuracy of findings.

SCOPE In Round 5, DTM accessed 1,973 locations (villages / neighbourhoods and displacement sites) in 444 sub-areas across every county (78) in all 10 states. This signifies an increase from 87% to 100% in coverage on a county-level and an increase in the number of locations accessed by 37% since Round 4. Locations are only assessed upon confirmation of presence of targeted populations. DTM conducted multi-sectoral assessments at 85% of mapped villages / neighbourhoods (1,621/ 1,879), and 99% of mapped displacement sites (93 / 94).

2 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5

IDPs by period of arrival at County level as of March 2019 Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries Displacement Tracking Matrix Mobility Tracking Round 5 on this map do not imply official dorsement ESTIMATED SIDPsOUTH SPERUDAN COUNTY or acceptance by IOM.

o Sudan y n a

M

Renk

Melut

Fashoda Maban Abyei Pariang Malakal Lon Baliet goc Abiemnhom Panyikang huk Aweil North Aweil East Rubkona Guit Twic M U Canal/Pigi l Aweil West a Fangak a yo n Aweil South m g

Luakpiny/Nasir t Raja u Nyirol iw Gogrial WestGogrial East Koch a Ayod M Aweil Centre Tonj North r

e

e J Mayendit L u r R Ethiopia iv e Tonj East r Duk P Akobo a Uror Rumbek North n y i j i Wau a IDPs r Twic East Cueibet Rumbek Centre h Pochalla

Period of arrival by County t u

o Yirol East

S

2014-2015 j Rumbek East

n o Nagero T 2016-2017 Bor South Yirol West Pibor 2018 Wulu Awerial

a

r 2019 (Jan-March) Tambura a z

N Mvolo Terekeka IDPs Individuals County Level 241-1,000 M Lafon Kapoeta North u Mundri East n Kapoeta East 1,001-10,000 d Ezo r Maridi i Ibba W

10,000-20,000 e

o s

i t b Juba

20,001-30,000 m

a

Y Kapoeta South 30,001-60,000 Torit La Kenya 60,001-130,000 Yei in Budi y Please note that displacement by year only a State Ikotos refers to displacement time of currently Democratic Republic of Congo Kajo-keji Magwi County displaced individuals and excludes any other Morobo Kilometers populations that have since returned. Uganda 0 20 40 80 120 160

PERCENTAGE OF IDPs LIVING IN SITES / HOST COMMUNITIES

Overall, a third of IDPs were reported to live across the 94 displacement sites identified by DTM in Round 5. The other two-thirds 29% are living in host community settings. The 16% 53% proportion of IDPs living in displacement Upper Warrap sites was especially high in Unity State and Northern B. Jonglei Central Equatoria (both hosting large PoC El Ghazal 3% Unity sites) with 53 per cent each. 21% 11% 30% Lakes OVERALL Western 33% Equatoria Central Eastern Equa- 30% Equatoria toria 5% 53% 3 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5 IDPs by current County and reason for displacement 2014-2019 Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries Displacement Tracking Matrix Mobility Tracking Round 5 on this map do not imply official dorsement SOUTH SUDAN Displaced by Communal Clashes or acceptance by IOM.

IDPs: displaced due to communalSudan Manyo INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT clashes 2014 to March 2019 Renk

Melut

Available data indicates a reduction in Maban Fashoda Pariang Panyikang Malakal displacement caused by conflict involving national Aweil East Rubkona Abiemnhom Baliet Aweil North Longochuk Mayom Guit Canal/Pigi Twic Luakpiny/Nasir Fangak actors, an increase in communal clashes induced Aweil West

Ulang

Raja Aweil South displacement and an increase in more localized Gogrial East Koch Nyirol Maiwut Aweil Centre Tonj North Ayod Gogrial West displacement. Leer Central African Republic Mayendit Ethiopia Jur River Tonj East Panyijiar Akobo Rumbek North Duk Uror Overall, the majority of individuals displaced Wau Twic East Pochalla

Cueibet

Tonj South Tonj Yirol East since 2014 moved to their current locations Rumbek Centre Rumbek East Nagero Bor South Yirol West Pibor due to conflict (76.6%) and 13.4 per cent due Wulu Awerial Tambura Mvolo

Nzara to communal clashes which encompass other Terekeka

0 Mundri West Lafon forms of violence that do not directly involve Ezo Kapoeta East 1 - 5,000 Ibba Maridi Mundri East Kapoeta North

Yambio 5,001 - 20,000 the state (<1% natural disaster and unknown for Juba Kapoeta South 20,001 - 30,000 Lainya Tor it Budi Yei Kenya 30,001 - 40,530 9.2%). The differentiation between more localized Ikotos Kajo-keji Magwi County IDPs by current County and reason for displacement 2014-2019 Disclaimer: This map is for illustration Democratic Republic of Congo Morobo purposes only. NamesKilometers and boundaries Displacement Tracking Matrix Mobility Tracking Round 5 0 20 40 80 120 160 instances of armed violence ( commonly referred State Displaced byUganda Conflict on this map do not imply official dorsement SOUTH SUDAN or acceptance by IOM. to as intercommunal clashes and cattle raiding)

IDPs: displaced due to conflictSudan from more politicised instances of armed conflict Manyo has become increasingly difficult, as described by 2014 to March 2019 Renk Andrew Gilmour, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, during the 8,560th meeting of the Melut Maban Fashoda Pariang Security Council (SC/13857, 25 June 2019). Panyikang Malakal Aweil East Abiemnhom Rubkona Baliet Aweil North Longochuk Mayom Guit Canal/Pigi Twic Luakpiny/Nasir Fangak Aweil West The proportion of IDPs displaced due to Ulang Aweil South Raja Gogrial East Koch Nyirol Maiwut Aweil Centre communal clashes has been higher amongst Tonj North Ayod Gogrial West

Leer

Central African Republic Mayendit Ethiopia those arriving at their current location in 2018 Jur River Tonj East Panyijiar Akobo Rumbek North Duk Uror

(29.8%) and the first quarter of 2019 (30.5%) Wau Twic East Pochalla

Cueibet

Tonj South Tonj Yirol East than amongst those having arrived in 2014-2015 Rumbek Centre

Rumbek East Nagero Bor South Yirol West (7.4%) and 2016-2017 (13.6%). Pibor Wulu Awerial Tambura Mvolo

Nzara Terekeka

0 Mundri West Lafon 1 - 5,000 Ezo Ibba Maridi Kapoeta East Mundri East Kapoeta North

Yambio By looking at average numbers of IDP arrivals 5,001 - 20,000 Juba Kapoeta South 20,001 - 30,000 Lainya Tor it Budi per month by reason for displacement, one can Yei Kenya 30,001 - 12,5377 Ikotos Kajo-keji County IDPs by current County and reason for displacement 2014-2019Magwi Disclaimer: This map is for illustration recognize a downward trend in the number Democratic Republic of Congo Morobo purposes only. Names and boundaries Kilometers Displacement Tracking Matrix Mobility Tracking Round 5 on this map do not imply official dorsement State Displaced by NaturalUganda Disaster 0 20 40 80 120 160 of individuals displaced due to conflict and an SOUTH SUDAN or acceptance by IOM. IDPs: displaced due to natural increase in the number of individuals displaced Sudan Manyo due to communal clashes – both in totals and disaster 2014 to March 2019 Renk proportionally to the overall average number of displaced individuals per month for a given Melut Maban Fashoda Pariang period. In 2018, Lakes and Jonglei saw especially Panyikang Malakal

Aweil East Abiemnhom Rubkona Baliet Aweil North Longochuk Mayom Guit high numbers of individuals having moved due to Canal/Pigi Luakpiny/Nasir Twic Fangak Aweil West

Ulang communal violence with over 22,000 and 21,000 Aweil South Raja Gogrial East Koch Nyirol Maiwut Aweil Centre Tonj North Ayod Gogrial West

IDPs respectively. For the first quarter of 2019 Leer

Central African Republic Mayendit Ethiopia Jur River the proportion was especially high for Western Tonj East Panyijiar Akobo Rumbek North Duk Uror Bahr el Ghazal where clashes broke out in March Wau Twic East Pochalla

Cueibet

Tonj South Tonj Yirol East 2019, namely in Jur River. This is also the county Rumbek Centre Rumbek East Nagero Bor South Yirol West Pibor with the highest overall number of individuals Wulu Awerial Tambura Mvolo

Nzara displaced within January – March 2019. Natural Disaster 2014-2019 Terekeka 0 Mundri West Lafon 1 - 5,000 Ezo Ibba Maridi Kapoeta East Mundri East Kapoeta North

Yambio 5,001 - 20,000 Juba Kapoeta South 20,001 - 30,000 Lainya Tor it Budi Yei Kenya 30,001 - 50,000 Ikotos Kajo-keji County Magwi Democratic Republic of Congo Morobo Kilometers State Uganda 0 20 40 80 120 160 4 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5

To consider when reading IDP findings

Figures only concern individuals remaining in a situation of displacement at the time of assessment Consequently, the real number of people who were displaced during a given period will be higher than what is captured in the current figures – i.e. excluding those who since returned / relocated or were displaced elsewhere. If displacement due to communal clashes results in shorter periods of displacement, i.e. quicker return or relocation, then the increase in communal clashes related displacement could be understated for a past period of time when comparing it to conflict, which might cause longer-term displacement, and in turn is more likely to make it into the current analysis. Some IDPs having arrived at their current (March 2019) destination within the post R-ARCSS period have been multiply displaced meaning that the recorded (initial) cause for displacement was an event further in the past.

The county with the second most displaced individuals of these three Monthly average of IDP arrivals for given period of analysis months is Wau County, which has comparing conflict / communal clashes* been the destination of many individuals fleeing Jur River as reported on in Event 25,000 100% Tracking reports after the reporting period in April and May 2019. Unity 90% State continues to host the largest 20,000 80% number of IDPs, a total of 217,031, 70% primarily due to the presence of Bentiu 15,000 60% PoC site, currently the largest PoC site in the country. This is reflected in the 50% fact that Rubkona County hosts 48.5 10,000 40% per cent of the state’s IDPs. 30% Movements of IDPs have been more 5,000 20% localized amongst those having arrived 10% at current locations more recently. Of Monthly average for analysis period - 0% locations with IDP arrivals in 2019, 64 2014-2015 2016-2017 2018 Jan-March 2019 % of overall monthly IDP arrival average per cent of sub-areas saw most IDPs Conict arriving from within the same county Average # of % of overall monthly Conict IDPs arriving Communal clashes IDP arrival average: in contrast to only 49 per cent of sub- Communal clashes areas where IDPs arrived in 2014-16. Sub-areas with majority of IDPs having come Percentage in number of IDPs since round 4 by from same / other state and county state for same locations assessed 2019 (101 SAs) -47% Northern Bahr el Ghazal 13% 23% 64% -29% Warrap 2018 (244 SAs) -18% Western Bahr el Ghazal 17% 28% 55% -14% Eastern Equatoria 2016-2017 (349 SAs) -13% Upper Nile 19% 25% 56% -12% Central Equatoria 2014-2016 (305 SAs) -10% Western Equatoria 24% 27% 49% -8% Unity Other State Other County -6% Jonglei Same State Other County Same State Same County -4% Lakes * Please note that this graph does not represent the number of individuals displaced during a given period. Figures are limited to those who remain currently displaced persons, i.e. excluding anyone who was displaced but has since returned. Time of displacement is unknown for 12,464 IDPs (not represented). NOTE: in 2017-2018 for 1% of the displaced populations, the reason is unknown 5 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5

INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT: Comparing round 4 and 5: number of COMPARING ROUND 4 AND 5 locations citing net increases, decreases or no change in the number of IDPs Comparing round 4 (December 2018) with round 5 (March 2019) Unity (338) shows that there has been a significant reduction in the number 104 73 161 Jonglei (168) of IDPs across areas assessed in both rounds (excluding locations 62 33 73 that were not re-assessed or new locations). In total, DTM saw Eastern Equatoria (160) a net reduction of 158,954 individuals across 1,370 locations. In 56 48 56 Western Equatoria (147) terms of number of locations, 39 per cent reported no change, 23 69 30 48 per cent reported an increase and for 38 per cent the number of Upper Nile (130) 41 28 61 IDPs decreased. Counties with a decrease of over 10,000 IDPs are Western Bahr el Ghazal (121) Kajo Keji (23,736 IDPs), Ikotos (18,562 IDPs), Tonj North (17,057 59 25 37 Lakes (116) IDPs), Wau (15,754 IDPs), Aweil West (14,754 IDPss), Melut 55 50 11 (13,315 IDPs) and Jur River (11,657 IDPs). For an overview on IDP Central Equatoria (104) 18 24 62 number changes by sub-area please refer to page 9. Warrap (45) 29 511 Please note that a decrease in the number of IDPs for a given Northern Bahr el Ghazal (41) 24 512 administrative area does not signify return but can also be due to repeated instances of displacement. The above figures are net # locations with net decrease # of IDPs reductions whereby certain locations within a same county might # locations with net increase # of IDPs have seen an increase in IDPs and others a decrease. # locations with no change in # of IDPs

Disclaimer: This map is for illustration IDPS Locations: Comparissos R4 and R5 purposes only. Names and boundaries Locations with net increases, decreases and no changes in the number of IDPs presenton tsincehis map do n oRoundt imply official dor s4ement Displacement Tracking Matrix Mobility Tracking Round 5 SOUTH SUDAN or acceptance by IOM.

o y Sudan n

a k

n M

e

R

Melut

a hod Maban Fas Pariang Malakal

A Abiemnhom R w u Panyikang Baliet e b

i t L Aweil North k o l i n M o L g Ea o a u C u c y n a huk G n a Twic o a a s m l/Pi k Aweil West t Fangak gi p in t U y s / t la N u e n a iw Aweil South g s W a Raja Koch i l Gogrial East Nyirol r M

a

Aweil Centre ri

g r it Ayod o Tonj North e d e G n e L y st a Central African Republic M Ethiopia J j Ea u n Pa r To R n Uror Akobo iv y Duk e Rumbek North i j i r a

h r

t t

Wau u e b Po

i T o

S w e ic East c h

j Rumbek Centre u al n l C Y a o iro T l Ea Rumbek East st Nagero Bor South irol West Y Pibor Ta Wulu A m werial bu ra ra a Mvolo z

N

h

rt t Terekeka

s o

IDPS Locations a M N

u E

a

n t ri

d e

d

Increase of IDPs o Lafon

o i ri

n

p Ezo b Kapoeta East Ibba W u

m

e M Maridi Ka Decrease of IDPS a s

Y t Juba No changes Kapoeta South L a Bu in y Torit d New location covered R5 Yei a i Kenya Ik ot Admin 1 Ka os jo-keji Magwi Democratic Republic of Congo Morobo Admin 2 Kilometers Uganda 0 20 40 80 120 160 6 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5 Average of returnees per month as of March 2019 Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries Displacement Tracking Matrix Mobility Tracking Round 5 on this map do not imply official dorsement SOUTH SUDAN or acceptance by IOM. ESTIMATED RETURNEES PER COUNTY

o y n Comparing pre and post R-ARCSS monthly averages a M

Renk

Sudan

Melut

Fashoda Maban Abyei Pariang Malakal Abiemnhom

A Baliet R w u Panyikang Lo b n Aweil North e go k i M ch l o u a k E yo n Guit a Twic m a s Fangak Canal/Pigi Aweil West t U Luakpiny/Nasir la n g Aweil South Gogrial East Raja Koch Nyirol Maiwut Aweil Centre Gogrial West Tonj North Ayod J u r Leer R Mayendit iv e Central African Republic r Ethiopia st Ea j P h n

t To a n Duk Uror u Akobo

y o Rumbek North i

S j

i

j a

r n

Wau o T

t e Pochalla b Twic East i Average of returnees per month e u C Rumbek Centre Y iro Period of arrival County Level Rumbek East l E ast Nagero Bor South Post R-ARCSS (Sept 2018 - March 2019) Yirol West Pibor Pre R-ARCSS (2016 - Aug 2018) Wulu Awerial

a

r

a z Mvolo Returnees individuals County level Tambura N 0 Terekeka

M t

s

1 - 10,000 u a n E Kapoeta North d i Lafon

r r i d Ezo Kapoeta East 10,001 - 20,000 Ibba W n u e s Maridi M t

o

i

20,001 - 30,000 b

m Juba

a

Y Kapoeta South La 30,001 - 60,000 in y a Torit Budi Yei 60,001 - 130,000 Kenya Ik ot State Kajo-keji Magwi os Democratic Republic of Congo Morobo Kilometers County Uganda 0 20 40 80 120 160

CONDITION OF RETURNEE HOUSING

More than half of all returnees were estimated

to live in either partially damaged housing Upper Nile (39%) or makeshift shelters (20%). Just over Warrap a quarter was said to live in undamaged Northern B. El Ghazal shelters (27%) and the proportion was Unity Jonglei unknown in 14 per cent of cases. The largest Western Bahr share of returnees living in damaged shelters El Ghazal was found in Upper Nile State where 80 of Lakes Western returnees lived in either partially (70%) or Equatoria severely (10%) damaged housing. The largest Eastern share of returnees living in makeshift shelters OVERALL Equatoria was found in Eastern Equatoria with 40 per cent. Returnees in Western Bahr el Ghazal UNKNOWN Central 14% Equatoria were most likely to live in undamaged shelters NO DAMAGE (39%). 27% MAKESHIFT For detailed map, click here PARTIAL DAMAGE SHELTER 39% 20% 7 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5

RETURN MOVEMENTS

For the period since the R-ARCSS, 534,082 individuals have returned to their habitual residence of whom 210,199 (39%) came from abroad. Of all individuals returned since 2016, 45 per cent arrived since the peace agreement. In other words, the seven-month period post R-ARCSS accounted for 45 per cent of all returnees compared to the 39-month period pre R-ARCSS, which accounted for 48 per cent of returnees (the rest unknown). The average number of returnees per month in the three months after R-ARCSS (October - December 2018) was 96,278 individuals. This represents a 169 per cent increase compared to the monthly average of the preceding months of 2018. However, this monthly average decreased again (by 48%) in the first quarter of 2019, suggesting returns to not maintain a linear upward trend. Round 6 data will provide more insight into the potential effect the revitalized agreement had on return movements in the continuation of 2019.

Returnees arrival post peace agreetment as of March 2019 Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries NumberDisplacemen oft Tra Returneescking Matrix Mo bpostility Tra cR-ARCSSking Round 5 (Sept 2018 - March 2019) by arrival on this map do not imply official dorsement SOUTH SUDAN from Abroad or within South Sudan or acceptance by IOM.

o y n Sudan a M

Renk

Melut

oda Maban Fash Abyei Pariang m Pa Malakal ho ny n ika A m ie R ng Baliet w b A u

e b Aweil North k i Lo l o n M g E o a n Guit ch a C u y a a L k s Twic o na u t m Fangak l/Pi a g k Aweil West i p in U y t l / t s a N u

e n a w s i Aweil South g i a Raja W Koch r Gogrial East Nyirol M l

a i Aweil Centre r g

o Tonj North t r Ayod G i e

d e

n L e y a st M Ea Ethiopia J j u on r T P R a Akobo i n Duk Uror v Rum y e be i k N j r orth i a

r h

Wau t t

u e

o b i re

S t Pochalla e n Twic East j e u C n Returnees post R-ARCSS C k

o e

T b t Y m s iro (Sept 2018 - March 2019) u Ea l E R k as be t m Sub area level Ru Nagero Bor South Yirol West Returnees from within South Sudan Pibor Wulu Awerial

a Returnees from abroad Tambura r a Mvolo z

N

Returnees Individuals County Level Terekeka h t

Central African Republic r t

s o

a M N 0 E

u i a

t r n

e d d Lafon

o n

o r

i p 1-5,000 i u Ezo Kapoeta East b Ibba Maridi W a M K

m e

a s

5,001-15,000 Y t

15,001-25,000 Juba Kapoeta South La in 25,000-50,000 y Torit Budi Yei a Kenya 50,001-100,000 Iko to K s ajo-keji Magwi State Democratic Republic of Congo Morobo Kilometers County Uganda 0 20 40 80 120 160 RETURNS FROM ABROAD: 36% of all returnees

Overall, 36 per cent of all returnees arrived from abroad. Amongst periods of analysis, the proportion of returnees arriving from abroad was the slightly greater in the three months after R-ARCSS, namely 41 per cent with an average of 37 per cent per analysis period pre R-ARCSS. Less than a quarter of counties (18 out of 78) hosted over three quarters of returnees and 13 of these border neighbouring countries like Uganda (Kajo-Keji, Magwi, Torit and Ikotos), Ethiopia (Akobo, Ulang and Nasir) and Sudan (Renk, Aweil Centre, East, North, South and West). Over half of all returnees accounted for in March 2019 in Upper Nile had arrived after the peace agreement (59%) and three quar- ters of these arrived from abroad (74%). The proportion of returnees having arrived from abroad after R-ARCSS was even higher in Northern Bahr el Ghazal, with 85 per cent albeit lower in totals. 8 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5

RETURNEE TRENDS: comparing round 4 and 5

During round 5 (March 2019), the number of returnees overall for the same assessed locations only (1,370 locations) has increased by 26,314 individuals since round 4 (December 2018). Whilst this is a net increase, Jonglei and Central Equatoria saw proportional decreases of 6 and 22 per cent respectively. The number of returnees for a given area of analysis can fluctuate as a result of renewed displacements or onwards movements. A lack of significant net increases of decreases of returnees does not signify a lack of popula- tion movements as similar numbers of new arrivals and departure would cancel each other out. The highest increase in the number of returns was found in Western Bahr el Ghazal with 21,609 individuals whereas Warrap State saw the highest proportional increase with a figure 147 per cent higher than in round 4. On a county level the increases were most pronounced in Wau (37,782 individuals), followed by Magwi (20,689 individuals), Nagero (8,000), Pariang (6,327 individuals), Aweil North (6,144 individuals) and Duk (6,051 individuals). For an overview on rerturn number changes by sub-area plrease refer to page 9.

DEFINITIONS

IDPs Persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized state border. South Sudan: Time of arrival in assessed area considered: 2014 to March 2019

Returnees: internal / from abroad Someone who was displaced from their habitual residence either within South Sudan or abroad, who has since returned to their habitual residence. Please note: the returnee category, for the purpose of DTM data collection, is restricted to individuals who returned to the exact location of their habitual residence, or an adjacent area based on a free decision. South Sudanese displaced persons having crossed the border into South Sudan from neighboring countries without having reached their home are still displaced and as such not counted in the returnee category. South Sudan: Time of arrival in assessed area considered: 2016 to March 2019

Relocated Individuals Someone who was displaced from their habitual residence either within South Sudan or abroad, who has since relocated voluntarily (independently or with the help of other actors) to another location than their former habitual residence, without an intention to return to their former habitual residence.

Note on returnee definition

The IOM DTM returnee figure from abroad cannot be compared directly with the spontaneous refugee returnees reported by UNHCR. The latter can have returned home (this would be captured as part of the returnees from abroad category in IOM DTM), but they may also find themselves in a situation of continued displacement or have chosen a new habitual residence (in both cases, they would be considered but not directly visible as part of the IDP and relocated figures reported by IOM). UNHCR and IOM technical teams are exploring how to improve data sharing to enable comparison and integration of numbers published by each agency.

9 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5

Disclaimer: This map is for illustration IDPs by County: Comparison R4 and R5 purposes only. Names and boundaries IDPs by County: Comparison of round 4 and 5 for same locations on this map do not imply official dorsement Displacement Tracking Matrix Mobility Tracking Round 5 SOUTH SUDAN or acceptance by IOM.

o Sudan y n a

M

k

n

e

R

Melut

Fashoda Abyei Maban Pariang Malakal Abiemnhom Panyikang Baliet Aweil North Lon Rubkona L go Aweil East u c Twic t hu M i a k a u Canal/Pigi k y p Aweil West o G m Fangak in U y / t la N u n a iw Aweil South g s a Raja GogriaGl Wogersiatl East Koch Nyirol ir M

r

t e Aweil Centre J i Ayod u Tonj North d e r n L R e i y v a Central African Republic e r Tonj East M Ethiopia Pa

n Uror Akobo y Duk Po Rumbek North i j i c a ha Wau r lla Cueibet h Rumbek Centre

t Twic East

u o

S Yirol East

j Rumbek East n

T o am Nagero T bu Bor South ra Yirol West Pibor 64,000 Wulu Awe ra rial a z Mvolo Estimated IDPs Ind R4 N Terekeka Estimated IDPs Ind R5 Mundri East Kapoeta North Ibba Mundri West Lafon R4 and R5 comparisson Ezo Kapoeta East Maridi

IDPs o

i

b Bu Increase m

a Juba dKapoeta South Y i Decrease Torit Yei Lainya No changes Kenya Ik County not covered R4 ot Kajo-keji Magwi os Democratic Republic of Congo Morobo Admin 1 Kilometers Uganda 0 20 40 80 120 160

Disclaimer: This map is for illustration Returnees by County: Comparison R 4 a nd R 5 purposes only. Names and boundaries on this map do not imply official dorsement Returnees by County:Displacemen t ComparisonTracking Matrix Mobilit yof Tra croundking Round 45 S andOUTH S5UD AforN same locations or acceptance by IOM.

o Sudan y n a

M

k

n

e

R

Melut

Fashoda Maban Abyei Pariang Malakal Abiemnhom Panyikang Baliet Aweil North Lon Rubkona L go Aweil East Twic u c t h

i u Mayom a k u Canal/Pigi k p

Aweil West G Fangak in U y / t la N u n a iw Aweil South g s a Raja GogriaGl Wogersiatl East Koch Nyirol ir M

r

t e Aweil Centre J i Ayod u Tonj North d e r n L R e i y v a Central African Republic e r Tonj East M Ethiopia Pa

n Uror y Duk Akobo Po Rumbek North i j i c a ha Wau r lla Cueibet Twic East

h Rumbek Centre

t

u o

S Yirol East

j Rumbek East T n am o b Nagero T Bor South ura 54,000 Yirol West Pibor Wulu Aweria ra l

a z Mvolo Estimated returnees Ind Total R4 N Terekeka Estimated returnees Ind Total R5 Mundri East Kapoeta North Ezo Ibba Mundri West Lafon R4 and R5 comparisson Kapoeta East Maridi

Changes Returnees o

i

b Bu Increase m Juba a dKapoeta South

Y i Decrease Torit Yei Lainya No changes Kenya Ik County not covered R4 ot Kajo-keji Magwi os Democratic Republic of Congo Morobo Admin 1 Kilometers Uganda 0 20 40 80 120 160 Location Map link 10 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5

CLICK TO ACCESS MAPS

Locations covered: host Returnees from abroad / community / displacement South Sudan since 2016 site settings (size A0)

Locations by presence IDP population by of IDPs and returnees County and period of from abroad and within arrival South Sudan (size A0)

Locations covered by County as of March 2019 Click to access more maps DTM Mobility Tracking Round 5 o y n CLICK COUNTY TO ACCESS 78 INDIVIDUAL COUNTY-LEVEL MAPS a M

Renk Sudan

Melut

oda Maban Fash Pariang m Pa Malakal ho ny n ika A m ie R ng Baliet w b A u b Aweil North e i k L t o l o n M i g E o n c u h a a C u y a a L k s Twic o G na u t m Fangak l/Pi a g k Aweil West i p in U y t l / t s a N u n e a w g s i Aweil South i a Raja W Koch r Gogrial East Nyirol M Ethiopia l

a i Aweil Centre r

g

o Tonj North t r Ayod G i e

d e

n L e y a st M Ea J j u on r T P R a Akobo i n Duk Uror v Ru y e mb i ek N j r ort i h a

r h

Wau t t

u e

o b i re

S t Pochalla e n Twic East j e u C n C k

o e

T b t Y m as iro u E l E R k as be t Central African Republic m Ru Nagero Bor South Yirol West Pibor Wulu A Locations covered werial

a Tambura r a Mvolo State z N

Terekeka h

t

r # of Locations covered by County t

s o

a M N

E

4 - 14 u i a

t r n

e d d Lafon

o n

o r

i p i u Ezo Kapoeta East

a 15 - 23 b Ibba Maridi W M K

m e

a s 24 - 37 Y t Juba 38 - 63 Kapoeta South La in 64 - 116 y Torit Budi Yei a

Iko Kilometers to Kenya Democratic Republic of Congo K s 0 25 50 100 150 200 ajo-keji Magwi Morobo Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries on this map do Uganda not imply official dorsement or acceptance by IOM. CLICK TO ACCESS DATASETS Mobility Tracking round 5: Baseline IDPs / Returnees by sub-area 78 Counties 444 sub-areas BASELINE Mobility Tracking round 5: Baseline IDPs / Returnees by location 1,973 locations 1,621 93 MULTISECTOR Round 5: Village / Neighbourhood locations Round 5: Site sites 11 SOUTH SUDAN IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5

Data collection attributes:

IDPs:

- Numbers (individuals and households) - Time of displacement (2014-2015; 2016-2017; 2018; 2019 (Jan-March) - Reason for displacement - Type of settlement (displacement site or host community setting) - Multiple displacement

Returnees:

- Numbers (individuals and households) - Returnees from within South Sudan or abroad • Time of return (2016-2017; 2018 pre R-ARCSS [January – mid-September 2018]; 2018 post R-ARCSS mid-September 2018 – December 2018) and January – March 2019 • Displacement area for majority of returnees per period of arrival • Reason for displacement for majority of returnees per period of arrival

- Status of returnee housing (no damage, partial damage, server damage [makeshift shelter])

+ number of relocated, estimates of host community population size, occupation of shelters by non-owners, number of non-returned individuals / households by sub-area.

CLICK TO ACCESS DATA COLLECTION FORM - SUBAREA LEVEL

12