Situation Overview: Upper Nile State, South Sudan October - December 2018 Map 1: Assessment coverage in UNS in October security, education, nutrition and protection Introduction METHODOLOGY (A), November (B) and December 2018 (C) in their previous settlements-of-residence. In the fourth quarter of 2018, Upper Nile State Primary data was triangulated with secondary To provide an overview of the situation in (UNS) saw localised insecurity in Nasir County 0 - 4.9% C A information and past REACH assessments. largely inaccessible areas of Upper Nile State, and population inflows from neighbouring 5 - 10% REACH uses primary data from key informants 11 - 20% This situation overview (SO) evaluates who have recently arrived from, recently visited, Sudan and Ethiopia amplified by the onset of Manyo 21 - 50% changes in observed humanitarian needs or receive regular information from a location the dry season. Insecurity and reported returns 51 - 100% Renk across UNS in the fourth quarter of 2018. or “Area of Knowledge” (AoK). Information for may have also perpetuated food insecurity, Assessed settlement The first section analyses displacement and this report was collected from key informants limited access to protected water sources and B population movement to and from the area, in Malakal PoC site in Upper Nile as well as sub-standard internally displaced persons’ in Akobo, in neighbouring Jonglei State, in Melut while the second section disaggregates trends (IDPs’) shelter conditions. Data on needs in October, November and December 2018. on access to food and basic services, including UNS is required to inform the humanitarian Malakal Fashoda Maban sections on food security and livelihoods (FSL); In-depth interviews were conducted over the first response. However, information gaps exist three weeks of each month. The standardised Panyikang Baliet protection; WASH and health; shelter and non- due to different regional dynamics and limited survey tool included questions on displacement access throughout much of the state. Longochuck food items (NFIs); and education. trends, population needs, food security and livelihoods, and access to basic services. After Nasir Information is presented across two geographic REACH has been assessing hard-to-reach Maiwut data collection was completed, all data was areas of South Sudan since December 2015 Ulang zones in UNS: the western bank (Panyikang, Malakal, Fashoda and Manyo counties) and aggregated at settlement level, and settlements in order to inform the response of humanitarian were assigned the modal response. When no southeastern UNS (Nasir and Ulang counties). actors working outside formal settlement sites. consensus could be found for a settlement, that Data is collected on a monthly basis through The REACH team consistently covered Population Movement and settlement was not included in reporting. key informant interviews from settlements Panyikang, Malakal, Fashoda, Manyo, Ulang Data was analyzed at the county level using across the region. To ensure information and Nasir counties from October to December Displacement descriptive statistics and geospatial analysis. provided on settlements was current, REACH 2018 (Map 1). Improved security and family reunification- Only counties with interview coverage of at 2 interviewed KIs who were either new arrivals In the fourth quarter of 2018, REACH driven movement least 5% of all settlements in a given month were included in analysis. Due to access and from the assessed settlement or had contacted interviewed 490 key informants (KIs) from In the fourth quarter of 2018, localised operational constraints, the specific settlements an individual from there within the last month. 188 settlements in six counties of UNS. This confidence-building measures implemented by assessed within each county each month vary. data was supplemented with thirteen focus # of key informant interviews conducted: 490 armed actors across parts of UNS supporting In order to reduce the likelihood that variations group discussions (FGDs) conducted with 1 in data are attributable to coverage differences, # of assessed settlements: 188 free movement, coupled with seasonal road new arrivals from Fashoda, Manyo, Malakal passability during the dry season, contributed to over time analyses were only conducted for # of counties covered: 6 (of 12) and Panyikang counties in Malakal Protection counties with at least 70% consistent payam3 an apparent increase of population movements # of focus group discussions conducted: 13 of Civilians (PoC) site on displacement, food coverage over the period. toward family reunification (Map 2). However, 1. Reported by UNMISS and humanitarian partners to an Inter-Cluster Working Group (ICWG) in Malakal, December 2018; WFP, First River Convoy in Five Years, October 2018. 2. 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. 3. Payams are the administrative unit at the sub-county level in South Sudan. cross-border movement appears to be mixed share reporting their primary motivation being Aburoc in Fashoda County reportedly also saw Food, water and service-driven movement and driven by an array of push and pull factors family reunification (28% in December).6 This some new arrivals from South Kordofan in this In the fourth quarter, movement to access as outlined in subsequent sections. movement was likely augmented by the return period (940 individuals between November services continued in UNS (Map 2). Primary of seasonal labourers who completed the sim and December).8 Some households returning Parts of southeastern UNS saw increasing data suggested that displacement was higher sim and sorghum harvests in Sudan in late by way of Malakal PoC site and Aburoc may movement into settlements outside of primary in Fashoda County: In December, 14% of December.7 Some additional cross-border have merely used them as family reunification population centres. During this period, assessed settlements reported a large-scale movement may have been due to push factors hubs before select, largely able-bodied male, humanitarian partners have noted self-reported displacement out of the settlement in the last such as poor conditions in refugee camps in household members proceeded to settlements- spontaneous returns from neighbouring three months. Most of this movement from Sudan, see ‘food, water and service-driven of-origin to assess security and available Ethiopia into Ulang, Maiwut and Longochok Fashoda County settlements was likely to other movement’ section for more details. services.9 counties. Whilst initial information suggests areas of the county as, of assessed Fashoda that this inflow back into South Sudan may Map 2: Movement into and out of UNS, October-December 2018 County settlements with IDPs who had arrived also be partly driven by insecurity in refugee Sudan in the last three months, the largest share camps in Gambella, more data is needed to (67%) reported that these IDPs had relocated better understand these movement dynamics, Insecuritydrien oeent from other settlements within Fashoda County. Refuee cap conditiondrien oeent including their scale. Of concern to returnees’ Reflectively, due to continued water shortage, Manyo !enk aily reunificationdrien oeent Omar! vulnerability is that all three counties have been ood and lielihoodsdrien oeent 378 individuals were displaced out of Aburoc ! Water shortaedrien oeent classified as IPC Phase 4 (‘Emergency’) as of Wadekona in Fashoda County between November and 4 Renk County oundary September 2018, indicating very high levels of State oundary December to Lul and Kodok (Fashoda County), food insecurity. International oundary Wau Shilluk and Malakal PoC site (Malakal ! County capital County) and to Sudan.10 In addition to the Movement continued from the White Nile Sudan ! Settleent water challenges in Aburoc, Fashoda County region of Sudan toward central UNS and the Ô Protection of Ciilians (PoC) site ! aka saw declining access to food in this period western bank in this quarter. REACH port ! Melut ! (0% of assessed Fashoda County settlements and road monitoring in Renk Town tracks elal Aak horogwang reported adequate access to food in December population flows between and through Renk !Aburoc as compared with 29% in October), which and Sudan. Data from this activity suggests Malakal Fashoda!odok Maban ul may have further contributed to evidenced Unity ! a net population inflow as opposed to a net From Ben Wau Shilluk! Upper Nile tiu PoC displacement. For more details see the food, outflow over the fourth quarter, with an average site Panyikang onga ÔÆ Malakal ! !Dor security, and livelihoods section of this SO. of 37 individuals entering South Sudan versus ! ! Baliet New Fangak one individual exiting per day (with the intention Owachi Food insecurity and livelihoods also motivated Fangak Longochuk Ethiopia to permanently stay) in December, though outflows from UNS in the fourth quarter. Data Jonglei not all entry points to Renk are monitored from REACH Renk port and road monitoring Nasir 5 Maiwut systematically. Inflows to South Sudan via Ulang ! demonstrated that 32% of households leaving etome ! Maiwut Renk town primarily reported Melut, Maban and Pagak! South Sudan through Renk in December were Fashoda counties as well as to Malakal PoC ikou! motivated by a lack of food or jobs in their 11 site as their final destinations, with the largest Wanding! previous settlements.