DOCSLIB.ORG

SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5 M Renk Sudan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SOUTH SUDAN Mobility Tracking Round 5 M Renk Sudan 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 SOUTH SUDAN 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 Equatoria 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 Central African Republic 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 Nile 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. Western Bahr El Ghazal 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wartime Trade and the Reshaping of Power in South Sudan Learning from the Market of Mayen Rual South Sudan Customary Authorities Project
    SOUTH SUDAN CUSTOMARY AUTHORITIES pROjECT WARTIME TRADE AND THE RESHAPING OF POWER IN SOUTH SUDAN LEARNING FROM THE MARKET OF MAYEN RUAL SOUTH SUDAN customary authorities pROjECT Wartime Trade and the Reshaping of Power in South Sudan Learning from the market of Mayen Rual NAOMI PENDLE AND CHirrilo MADUT ANEI Published in 2018 by the Rift Valley Institute PO Box 52771 GPO, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya 107 Belgravia Workshops, 159/163 Marlborough Road, London N19 4NF, United Kingdom THE RIFT VALLEY INSTITUTE (RVI) The Rift Valley Institute (www.riftvalley.net) works in eastern and central Africa to bring local knowledge to bear on social, political and economic development. THE AUTHORS Naomi Pendle is a Research Fellow in the Firoz Lalji Centre for Africa, London School of Economics. Chirrilo Madut Anei is a graduate of the University of Bahr el Ghazal and is an emerging South Sudanese researcher. SOUTH SUDAN CUSTOMARY AUTHORITIES PROJECT RVI’s South Sudan Customary Authorities Project seeks to deepen the understand- ing of the changing role of chiefs and traditional authorities in South Sudan. The SSCA Project is supported by the Swiss Government. CREDITS RVI EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Mark Bradbury RVI ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND COMMUNICATIONS: Cedric Barnes RVI SOUTH SUDAN PROGRAMME MANAGER: Anna Rowett RVI SENIOR PUBLICATIONS AND PROGRAMME MANAGER: Magnus Taylor EDITOR: Kate McGuinness DESIGN: Lindsay Nash MAPS: Jillian Luff,MAPgrafix ISBN 978-1-907431-56-2 COVER: Chief Morris Ngor RIGHTS Copyright © Rift Valley Institute 2018 Cover image © Silvano Yokwe Alison Text and maps published under Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 Available for free download from www.riftvalley.net Printed copies are available from Amazon and other online retailers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of South Sudan Request for an Extension of the Deadline For
    The Republic of South Sudan Request for an extension of the deadline for completing the destruction of Anti-personnel Mines in mined areas in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1 of the convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction Submitted at the 18th Meeting of the State Parties Submitted to the Chair of the Committee on Article 5 Implementation Date 31 March 2020 Prepared for State Party: South Sudan Contact Person : Jurkuch Barach Jurkuch Position: Chairperson, NMAA Phone : (211)921651088 Email : [email protected] 1 | Page Contents Abbreviations 3 I. Executive Summary 4 II. Detailed Narrative 8 1 Introduction 8 2 Origin of the Article 5 implementation challenge 8 3 Nature and extent of progress made: Decisions and Recommendations of States Parties 9 4 Nature and extent of progress made: quantitative aspects 9 5 Complications and challenges 16 6 Nature and extent of progress made: qualitative aspects 18 7 Efforts undertaken to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians from mined areas 21 # Anti-Tank mines removed and destroyed 24 # Items of UXO removed and destroyed 24 8 Mine Accidents 25 9 Nature and extent of the remaining Article 5 challenge: quantitative aspects 27 10 The Disaggregation of Current Contamination 30 11 Nature and extent of the remaining Article 5 challenge: qualitative aspects 41 12 Circumstances that impeded compliance during previous extension period 43 12.1 Humanitarian, economic, social and environmental implications of the
    [Show full text]
  • Download (PDF, 514.70
    SOUTH SUDAN Overview of spontaneous refugee returns 31 August 2019 Spontaneous refugee returnees by Country of Asylum 209,071 Overall Current Month Reported Spontaneous Uganda 92,093 44.0% Refugee Returnees* 3,096 Sudan 54,108 25.9% 15,945 recorded in August 2019 10,634 24.0% Ethiopia 50,220 2,332,097 South Sudanese 1,677 5,215 2.5% Refugees in host countries Kenya as of 30 June 2019 49 4,599 2.2% DRC ** 489 855,962 833,784 2,800 1.3% CAR ** 422,240 36 0.1% 118,067 102,044 Other Sudan Uganda Ethiopia Kenya DRC** ** CAR: Central African Republic; DRC: Democratic Republic of Congo 2019 spontaneous refugee return trend (1 Jan - 31 Aug): 73,085 *** Spontaneous0K refugee returnees50K by State100K of arrival 20,431 Eastern Equatoria 61,430 15,945 Jonglei 44,024 Unity 37,763 Upper Nile 23,919 9,262 Central Equatoria 18,981 6,000 6,480 9,538 4,600 Lakes 15,407 829 Western Bhar Ghazal 3,793 Western Equatoria 2,864 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Northern Bahr Ghazal 470 Warrap 420 ***Historical data might change retroactively due to late reporting and time required to triangulate information Spontaneous Refugee Returnees by county MANYO 11,350 SUDAN RENK 939 MELUT 54 MABAN FASHODA 19,524 UNITY 488 ABYEI 1,052 Upper Nile PARIANG MALAKAL UpperUpperUPPER NileNile ABIEMNHOM PANYIKAG 153 706 NILE 14 1,010 BALIET AWEIL NORTH RUBKONA 211 LONGOCHUK GUIT 293 TWIC MAYOM 18,351 1,077 4,877 319 5,069 FANGAK AWEIL WEST NORTHERN 256 LUAKPINY/NASIR RAGA 43 Northern Bahr el 27,860 1,090 BAHR EL GHAZAL KOCH MAIWUT 1,144 Ghazal GOGRIAL WEST NYIROL ULANG 5,202Unity
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Ethnic Groups in Southern Sudan Exact Representationw Ohf Iteh En Isleituation Ins Tehnen Acrountry
    Ethnic boundaries shown on this map are not an Distribution of Ethnic Groups in Southern Sudan exact representationW ohf iteh eN isleituation inS tehnen aCrountry. The administrative units and their names shown on this map do not imply White acceptance or recognition by the Government of Southern Sudan. Blue ") State Capitals This map aims only to support the work of the Humanitarian Community. Nile Renk Nile Sudan Renk Admin. Units County Level Southern Darfur Southern Shilluk Berta Admin. Units State Level Kordofan Manyo Berta Country Boundary Manyo Melut International Boundaries Shilluk Maban Sudan Fashoda Dinka (Abiliang) Abyei Pariang Upper Nile Burum Malakal Data Sources: National and State Dinka (Ruweng) ") boundaries based on Russian Sudan Malakal Baliet Abiemnhom Panyikang Map Series, 1:200k, 1970-ties. Rubkona Guit County Boundaries digitized based on Aweil North Statistical Yearbook 2009 Aweil East Twic Mayom ") Nuer (Jikany) Canal (Khor Fulus) Longochuk Southern Sudan Commission for Census, Dinka (Twic WS) Nuer (Bul) Statistics and Evaluation - SSCCSE. Fangak Dinka (Padeng) Digitized by IMU OCHA Southern Sudan Aweil West Dinka (Malual) Nuer (Lek) Gogrial East Unity Nuer (Jikany) Northern Bahr el Ghazal ") Luakpiny/Nasir Aweil Maiwut Aweil South Raga Koch Gogrial West Nuer (Jegai) Nyirol Ulang Nuer (Gawaar) Aweil Centre Warrap ") Tonj North Ayod Kwajok Mayendit Leer Dinka (Rek) Fertit Chad Nuer (Adok) Nuer (Lou) Jur Chol Tonj East ") Wau Akobo Western Bahr el Ghazal Nuer (Nyong) Dinka (Hol) Uror Duk Jur River Rumbek North Panyijar
    [Show full text]
  • Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)
    PERMANENTPERMANENT COURT COURT OF OF ARBITRATION ARBITRATION ININTHETHE MATTER MATTER OF OFANANARBITRATIONARBITRATION BEFORE BEFORE A ATRIBUNALTRIBUNAL CONSTITUTEDCONSTITUTEDININACCORDANCEACCORDANCEWITHWITHARTICLEARTICLE55OFOFTHETHE ARBITRATIONARBITRATION AGREEMENTAGREEMENT BETWEENBETWEEN THETHE GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT OFOF SUDANSUDAN ANDAND THETHE SUDANSUDAN PEOPLE’SPEOPLE’S LIBERATIONLIBERATION MOVEMENT/ARMYMOVEMENT/ARMY ON ON DELIMITING DELIMITING ABYEI ABYEI AREA AREA BETWEEN:BETWEEN: GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT OF OF SUDAN SUDAN andand SUDANSUDAN PEOPLE’S PEOPLE’S LIBERATION LIBERATION MOVEMENT/ARMY MOVEMENT/ARMY MEMORIALMEMORIAL OF OF THE THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF OF SUDAN SUDAN VOLUMEVOLUME II II ANNEXESANNEXES 1818 DECEMBER DECEMBER 2008 2008 Figure 1 The Area of the Bahr el Arab Figure 1 The Area of the Bahr el Arab ii ii Table of Contents Glossary Personalia List of Figures paras 1. Introduction 1-38 A. Geographical Outline 1-3 B. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Boundaries of 1956 4-5 C. Abyei and the “Abyei Area” 6-9 D. Origins of the Dispute Submitted to the Tribunal 10-15 E. The Task of this Tribunal 16-36 (i) Key Provisions 16-18 (ii) The Dispute submitted to Arbitration 19-20 (iii) The Excess of Mandate 21-21 (iv) The Area Transferred 22-36 (a) The Territorial Dimension 22-30 (b) The Temporal Dimension 31-33 (c) The Applicable Law 34-35 (d) Conclusion 36-36 F. Outline of this Memorial 37-38 2. The Meaning of the Formula 39-56 A. Introduction 39-40 B. The Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 41-42 C. Discussions leading to the CPA and the Abyei Protocol 43-55 D. Conclusions 56-56 3. The ABC Process 57-92 A. Introduction 57-58 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Crop Planting Assessment Mission to Greater Bahr El Ghazal Republic of South Sudan July 2014
    A partnership between the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Cooperatives & Rural Development (GRSS-MAFCRD) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Crop Planting Assessment Mission to Greater Bahr el Ghazal Republic of South Sudan July 2014 Report 2 in preparation for the Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM) Team leader: Dr Ian Robinson, AA International Ltd This report has been produced with the financial support of the EU, under the “Agriculture and Food Information System for Decision Support (AFIS)” Project in South Sudan FAO reference: GCP/SSD/003/EC; EU reference: FED/2012/304-645 CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 Agricultural systems 2.2 Livestock systems 2.3 Livestock population in South Sudan 3. FACTORS AFFECTING PLANTED AREA 2014 3.1 Rainfall 3.2 Access to land and farmer confidence. 3.3 Power sources 3.4 Input supply 3.5 Crop pest s and diseases 3.6 Livestock movement, numbers and performance 3.7 Livestock body condition 4. CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Effect of rainfall 4.2 Effect of access to land and confidence 4.3 Effect of power supply 4.4 Effect of inputs 4.5 Effect of pest and diseases 4.6 Planted area ANNEX 1 PERSONS MET (EXCLUDING FARMERS/ HERDERS) ANNEX 2 OBSERVATIONAL TRANSECTS ANNEX 3 PLANTING SEASON ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST AND SUMMARY SHEET 1 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 An MAFCRD/FAO Planting Assessment Mission visited Greater Bahr el Ghazal from 30th May to 23rd June 2014 to assess the overall land preparation and planting situation in accessible counties in the four constituent states of Western Bahr el Ghazal, Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Warrap and Lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Inter-Agency Rapid Needs Assessment Report: Gette, Jur River (12 April 2016)
    Inter-agency Rapid Needs Assessment Report: Gette, Jur River (12 April 2016) Aweil South Background Northern Bahr el Ghazal Gogrial West Gogrial East Gette Boma is within Udici Payam in Jur River County, Aweil Centre P Kuajok 50 km outside Wau town. Insecurity and fighting in the neighbouring payam of Bessilia in Wau County Udici ! since February 2016 has affected Gette. Cross-border Warrap !Makot 5,570 incursions by armed actors pursing cattle keepers has Kiyango ! ! Gette ! Tonj North ! Jur River caused people bordering Jur River County and Wau Kondongo Kwot Besselia County in the south to flee their villages. Those that ! PWau Tonj East were displaced within Udici Payam established four Baggari ! new settlements along the main Wau and Aweil Road. Wau On 12 April, humanitarian partners travelled from Wau Western Bahr el Ghazal to undertake an Inter-agency Rapid Needs Assessment (IRNA) mission in Gette Boma and respond to pressing Tonj South needs. This IRNA report outlines the key findings from Upper Nile Unity NBeG the assessment team. WBeG Warrap Jonglei Lakes Western Equatoria Eastern Equatoria Central Equatoria Nagero Key overview of findings CRISIS TIMELINE The IRNA team found that there were an estimated 5,570 Internally 2012 Displaced People (IDP) sheltering in Udici Payam, Jur River County, Wau County headquarters is who had fled from the villages of Kiyanngo, Bararoute, Kwot, moved from Wau Town to Kondogo, and Makot. IDPs reported that their livelihoods had been Baggari. Protests follow, destroyed and that they were surviving on wild food collection and reducing meals and food intake. Although arable land was available, resulting in death of 12 youth.
    [Show full text]
  • WEEKLY BULLETIN on OUTBREAKS and OTHER EMERGENCIES Week 18: 27 April - 3 May 2020 Data As Reported By: 17:00; 3 May 2020
    WEEKLY BULLETIN ON OUTBREAKS AND OTHER EMERGENCIES Week 18: 27 April - 3 May 2020 Data as reported by: 17:00; 3 May 2020 REGIONAL OFFICE FOR Africa WHO Health Emergencies Programme 0 107 97 11 New event Ongoing events Outbreaks Humanitarian crises 4 474 463 Algeria 17 1 372 0 8 1 Gambia 117 10 750 36 Mauritania 14 7 14 0 563 27 Senegal 304 1 135 3Eritrea 1 273 9 Niger 7 412 36 Mali 165 2 Burkina Faso 41 7 3 0 Cabo Verdé Guinea 662 45 53 0 Chad 123 3 4 690 18 4 1 2 388 85 26 0 Nigeria 1 650 7 Côte d’Ivoire South Sudan 1 873 895 15 72 0 274 3 32 0 Guinea-Bissau Ghana 987 202 2 077 64 3 970 64 124 9 139 0 2 0 2 0 Central African 22 0 Liberia 1 150 14 22 0 46 0 Benin Cameroon 4 732 26 Ethiopia 292 2 2 169 18 Republic 1 618 5 14 138 83 Sierra léone Togo 352 14 1 449 71 Uganda 40 18 Democratic Republic 637 1 169 0 14 0 97 2 465 24 157 8 of Congo 8 4 202 0 Congo 88 0 Gabon 3 462 2 279 Kenya 1 0 253 1 Legend 158 18 9 0 38 0 37 0 335 5 50 527 635 Rwanda Measles Humanitarian crisis 259 0 231 10 7 702 89 Burundi 23 0 11 0 Hepatitis E Monkeypox 19 1 682 34 Seychelles Sao Tome 110 0 Yellow fever 315 2 Tanzania 857 0 Lassa fever and Principe 480 18 20 7 79 0 Dengue fever Equatorial Cholera Guinea Angola 1 121 24 Ebola virus disease Comoros cVDPV2 39 3 2 0 Chikungunya 131 0 696 0 COVID-19 Malawi 35 2 Zambia Mozambique Leishmaniasis 124 3 Anthrax Plague Zimbabwe 1 506 15 Madagascar Malaria Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever Namibia Floods 286 1 34 4 332 10 Cases Botswana 170 303 152 151 0 Countries reported in the document Deaths 16 0 Mauritius 7 384 63 80 0 Non WHO African Region 23 1 WHO Member States with no reported events Eswatini N W E 3 0 Lesotho112 1 6 783 131 South Africa 20 0 S South Africa Graded events † 48 14 1 Grade 3 events Grade 2 events Grade 1 events 38 22 20 31 Ungraded events ProtractedProtracted 3 3 events events Protracted 2 events ProtractedProtracted 1 1 events event Health Emergency Information and Risk Assessment Overview This Weekly Bulletin focuses on public health emergencies occurring in the WHO Contents African Region.
    [Show full text]
  • South Sudan - Crisis Fact Sheet #7, Fiscal Year (Fy) 2019 June 7, 2019
    SOUTH SUDAN - CRISIS FACT SHEET #7, FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2019 JUNE 7, 2019 NUMBERS AT USAID/OFDA1 FUNDING HIGHLIGHTS A GLANCE BY SECTOR IN FY 2018–2019 Bureaucratic impediments restrict humanitarian operations in Upper Nile 4% 7% 23% Intercommunal violence affects thousands 7.2 million 8% in Jonglei and Western Bahr el Ghazal Estimated People in South 9% Sudan Requiring Humanitarian WFP concludes food pre-positioning Assistance before rainy season OCHA Situation Report – May 20, 2019 13% 20% HUMANITARIAN FUNDING 16% FOR THE SOUTH SUDAN RESPONSE IN FY 2018–2019 Logistics Support & Relief Commodities (23%) USAID/OFDA $183,548,434 6.9 million Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (20%) Health (16%) Estimated People in Need of Nutrition (13%) USAID/FFP $660,578,369 Food Assistance in South Sudan Protection (9%) 3 IPC Technical Working Group – May 2019 Agriculture & Food Security (8%) State/PRM $91,553,826 Humanitarian Coordination & Information Management (7%) Shelter & Settlements (4%) 4 USAID/FFP2 FUNDING $935,680,629 BY MODALITY IN FY 2018–2019 TOTAL USG HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR THE 1.8 million 1% SOUTH SUDAN RESPONSE IN FY 2018–2019 Estimated Number of IDPs in South Sudan 60% 31% 7% $4,066,807,602 UN – May 15, 2019 U.S. In-Kind Food Aid (60%) 1% TOTAL USG HUMANITARIAN FUNDING FOR THE Local & Regional Food Procurement (31%) SOUTH SUDAN RESPONSE IN FY 2014–2019, Complementary Services (7%) INCLUDING FUNDING FOR SOUTH SUDANESE Cash Transfers for Food (1%) REFUGEES IN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES Food Vouchers (1%) 178,200 Estimated Individuals Seeking Refuge at UNMISS Bases KEY DEVELOPMENTS UNMISS – June 3, 2019 Humanitarian health service disruptions caused by workers protesting recently reduced incentives have affected more than 3 million people across South Sudan’s Eastern Equatoria, Jonglei, Upper Nile, Warrap, and Western Equatoria states, according to the 2.3 million UN.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE REPORT WARRAP Village Assessments and Returnee
    STATE REPORT WARRAP Village Assessments and Returnee Monitoring Analytical Report, Maps and Statistical Tables 2009 Acknowledgements The International Organization for Migration (IOM) wishes to express its thanks to its partners, the Government of National Unity (GoNU), the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS), and particularly the Southern Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (SSRRC), for the hard work and support for the implementation of this programme. IOM also wishes to thank the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) Protection, Return, Reintegration and Recovery (RRR) and Civil Affairs for their cooperation and support. This project would not have been possible without the generous contributions and support of our donors. In this respect, IOM would like to offer its sincere appreciation to AusAID International Refugee Fund, the European Commission for Humanitarian Aid (ECHO), ), the Government of Japan, the Office for Disaster Assistance of the United States Agency for Development (OFDA/USAID), United Nations Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF), and UNDP, particularly the Threat and Risk Mapping Analysis (TRMA) project. 2 Table of contents Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................................................2 Executive summary ...............................................................................................................................................5 PART I – Narrative report......................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Village Assessment Survey Jur River County
    Village Assessment Survey COUNTY ATLAS 2013 Jur River County Western Bahr el Ghazal State Village Assessment Survey The Village Assessment Survey (VAS) has been used by IOM since 2007 and is a comprehensive data source for South Sudan that provides detailed information on access to basic services, infra- structure and other key indicators essential to informing the development of efficient reintegra- tion programmes. The most recent VAS represents IOM’s largest effort to date encompassing 30 priority counties comprising of 871 bomas, 197 payams, 468 health facilities, and 1,277 primary schools. There was a particular emphasis on assessing payams outside state capitals, where com- paratively fewer comprehensive assessments have been carried out. IOM conducted the assess- ment in priority counties where an estimated 72% of the returnee population (based on esti- mates as of 2012) has resettled. The county atlas provides spatial data at the boma level and should be used in conjunction with the VAS county profile. All Counties Assessed Planning Map and Dashboard..…………Page 1 WASH Section…………..………...Page 14 - 20 General Section…………...……...Page 2 - 5 Natural Source of Water……...……….…..Page 14 Main Ethnicities and Languages.………...Page 2 Water Point and Physical Accessibility….…Page 15 Infrastructure and Services……...............Page 3 Water Management & Conflict....….………Page 16 Land Ownership and Settlement Type ….Page 4 WASH Education...….……………….…….Page 17 Returnee Land Allocation Status..……...Page 5 Latrine Type and Use...………....………….Page 18 Livelihood Section…………..…...Page 6 - 9 Education Section………….……...Page 19 - 22 Major Livelihood Practices..…………...Page 6 Access to Education Facilities...……………Page 19 Major Food Crops Grown...…………..Page 7 Level of Edu.
    [Show full text]
  • Intention- Wau Perception Displacement Sites Survey
    Published 25 March 2019 IOM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX SOUTH SUDAN INTENTION- WAU PERCEPTION DISPLACEMENT SITES SURVEY Dec 2019 - Jan 2020 Udici Atido Alel Chok Abu-shaka SOUTH SUDAN Marial Bai Wau POC AA Kuom St Joseph Wau North Cathedral Besselia Lokoloko Ngolimbo Achot Wau South Nazareth Abu-shaka WAU Masna Momoi Bringi Bagari Wathalelo Ngodakala Rocrocdong 0 1.5 3 6 Kilometers Bagari Bagari Bussere 1 CONTENTS Arrival time ..............................................................................................8 Methodology .....................................................................................................2 Housing, Land and Property ........................................................... 10 KEY FINDINGS ...............................................................................................3 Livelihoods ............................................................................................. 10 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................4 INTENTIONS ............................................................................................... 11 KEY FINDINGS BY MAIN DESTINATIONS .......................................5 Intentions across all respondents ................................................ 11 Jur River as preferred destination ....................................................5 No intention to return ...................................................................... 12 Urban Wau County as preferred destination ............................5 Intending
    [Show full text]