Situation Overview: Upper Nile State, South Sudan January - March 2020 death in March (47% of assessed settlements Map 1: Assessment coverage in UNS in Introduction METHODOLOGY up from 29% in December). January (A), February (B) and March (C), 2020: Cumulative years of conflict, associated To provide an overview of the situation in hard- displacement and heavy flooding during the • WASH6 and health needs remained high to-reach areas of Upper Nile State (UNS), third and fourth quarters of 2019 have resulted across UNS compared to the previous A B REACH uses primary data from key informants in high humanitarian needs in Upper Nile State reporting period. In northeastern and central who have recently arrived from, recently visited, (UNS). Information gaps on humanitarian UNS 48% of assessed settlements reported or receive regular information from a settlement needs in UNS exist due to different regional not washing their hands at all in March, and or “Area of Knowledge” (AoK). Information for this report was collected from key informants dynamics and access challenges throughout 59% reported no functioning health facility the state, resulting in barriers to humanitarian in Malakal PoC site and Renk town in UNS in within walking distance. January, February and March 2020. programming. • This quarter, no large-scale displacement In-depth interviews on humanitarian needs 0 - 4.9% To inform humanitarian actors working outside was recorded, while 84% of assessed were conducted throughout the quarter using 5 - 10% formal settlement sites, REACH has conducted settlements reported the presence of refugee Manyo a structured survey tool. After data collection 11 - 20% assessments of hard-to-reach areas in South returns, marking an increase compared to C was completed, all data was aggregated at 21 - 50% Sudan since December 2015. Data is collected last quarter. Increases in the proportions of settlement level, and settlements were assigned 51 - 100% Renk the modal or most credible response. When no on a monthly basis through interviews with key assessed settlements reporting internally informants (KIs) with knowledge of settlements Assessed settlement consensus could be found for a settlement, that displaced people (IDPs) across northeastern settlement was not included in the reporting. and triangulated with focus group discussions and central UNS may be a delayed Melut Only counties with interview coverage of at (FGDs). This situation overview uses this data consequence of the flooding in quarters three 1 Malakal Fashoda Maban least 5% of all settlements in a given month to analyse changes in observed humanitarian and four of 2019, while a decrease in the were included in analysis. Due to access and needs between January and March 2020 proportion of assessed settlements reporting Panyikang operational constraints, the specific settlements 3 across UNS. In this reporting period REACH IDPs in Panyikang County was likely due to Baliet assessed within each county each month vary. covered all counties in UNS with the exception the improving food security situation. Longochuk In order to reduce the likelihood that variations of Longochuk and Maiwut.4 in data are attributable to coverage differences, • Reported protection concerns remained low Luakpiny Maiwut over time analyses were only conducted for /Nasir Key Findings in most of UNS, however, in southeastern counties with at least 70% consistent payam2 Ulang • Whilst reported access to food remained UNS, the proportion of assessed settlements coverage over the period. Quantitative findings relatively stable in March in central and reporting that most people did not feel safe were triangulated with focus group discussions most of the time was much higher, at 70%. (FGDs) and secondary sources. FGDs with northeastern UNS5 with 59% of assessed # of key informant interviews conducted: 735 people displaced from hard-to-reach areas took settlements reporting adequate access to • In March only 19% of assessed settlements # of assessed settlements: 386 place throughout January-March in Renk town food, food security in Ulang County reportedly with a reported the presence of IDPs reported # of counties covered consistently: 10 (of 12) and in the Malakal Protection of Civilians (PoC) deteriorated to the point where malnutrition any IDPs living without a shelter, mainly in # of focus group discussions conducted: 10 site. More details of the methodology can be was the most common reported cause of southeastern UNS. found in the AoK ToRs. 1. To calculate the percentage of AoK coverage, the total number of settlements per county is based on OCHA settlement lists in addition to new settlements mapped by KIs reached each month. 2. Payams are the administrative unit at the sub-county level in South Sudan. 3. Since coverage of Fashoda county in December did not reach the minimum 5% of all known settlements, comparisons with the last reporting period for this county refer to data collected in November 2019 unless otherwise specified. 4. REACH is not currently able to report on Longochuck or Maiwut counties since not enough KIs with first-hand knoweldge of these counties are present near the REACH bases inAkobo, Malakal and Renk 5. For the purposes of this report central and northeastern UNS is comprised of Baliet, Maban, Melut and Renk counties, western bank counties include Fashoda, Malakal, Manyo and Panyikang and southeastern UNS consists of Nasir and Ulang counties. 6. Water Sanitation and Hygiene Population Movement and IDP numbers noted in an assessment carried January displaced several thousand.9 proportions of assessed settlements (96% 8 Displacement out by the protection cluster in February. Cross-border Movement and 70% in March respectively) reporting that “half” or “more than half” of the host community During this quarter, the majority of counties on In southeastern UNS, the proportion of Reported refugee returns and host community were present. This trend to more returns and the west bank reported an influx in refugee and assessed settlements reporting IDP returns movements across westen bank counties may increased proportions of host community IDP returns, while assessed settlements across remained stable at 65%, while the proportion of be linked to food security in this area. In Fashoda members in Panyikang County may be related northern and central UNS reported larger assessed settlements reporting the presence County, reports of refugee returns in the six to the slightly improved food security situation numbers of IDPs compared to December 2019. of IDPs decreased slightly in Ulang County (to months prior to data collection remained stable 63%) while remaining stable in Nasir County (at (see FSL section). Internal Movements and high at 100% of assessed settlements in 78%). The decrease reported in IDP presence March, while across Panyikang, Malakal and Conversely, in Manyo County, the proportion In quarter one of 2020 there was an increase in in Ulang may be linked to the reported decrease Manyo counties, this proportion rose to 73% of assessed settlements reporting that “half” the proportion of assessed settlements reporting in food security there (see FSL section) while of assessed settlements in March compared or “more than half” of the host community were the presence of IDPs across central and some IDPs in Nasir County may have arrived to only 22% in December. In Panyikang and present shrank slightly from 100% in March northeastern UNS, (excluding Melut County) recently from Maiwut County, where clashes in Malakal counties this coincided with increased 2019 to 85% in March 2020.10 This decrease from 32% in December to 56% March. This Map 2: Movement into, out of, and within UNS, January - March 2020: may be linked to the food security situation trend aligns with a decrease in the proportion of which appeared increasingly poor in Manyo assessed settlements in Renk County reporting l n I n County and reportedly linked to new arrivals IDP returns (from 51% in December to 18% Innal ilamn (see FSL section). In Malakal County, a similar in March) and no change in the proportion of ny nay Manyo !Renk a nay trend of increased returns was reported last assessed settlements reporting this in Baliet ! 11 Innainal nay year, and may be linked to the availability and Maban counties. Increased reports of IDPs Wadekona ! ny aial Renk of general food distributions in the Malakal in this area may be partly driven by the flooding ! lmn . PoC during the lean season. This aligns with Ô in iilian i which occurred during quarters three and four . REACH port and road monitoring data which of 2019 and throughout January and February Ô am Sudan an . 7 aka showed Malakal PoC as a popular intended 2020. i ! am ! Melut destination for travelers passing through Renk In Panyikang County, a slightly improved food ! Paloch 12 Melut town in March. security situation may have contributed to a Aburoc ! Compared to December, the proportion of decreased proportion of assessed settlements !Maban Malakal Fashoda!odok Maban ul assessed settlements reporting refugee returns reporting IDP presence (62% in March) as well ! Unity Wau Shilluk! Upper Nile as an increase in the proportion reporting IDP Pariang Panyikang in Ulang County remained stable at 53% in ! ÆÔ Malakal returns (100% in March). Similarly, while the onga ! Baliet March and decreased slightly to 42% in Nasir ! Baliet New Fangak Diel ! County. Refugee returnees to southeastern proportion of assessed settlements reporting ! iia Fangak Canal/Pigi Adong ! Longochuk el Achel UNS most often came from Ethiopia (reported the presence of IDPs remained stable in Malakal !! Mathiang County, there was an increase in the proportion Nasir by 26% of assessed settlements that reported Manding ! Maiwut of assessed settlements reporting IDP returns Ulang ! Maiwut ! the presence of refugee returnees) and Jonglei Nyirol ! Nasser Mandeng to 65% in March. This may be partly linked Nyanding ! ! reportedly returned home because of insecurity Burebiey Jekow to the availability of food distributions in this Ô ambella (19%), a lack of access to land (7%) or due to county during the lean season and aligns with Akobo the distance to family members (7%).