Western Bahr El Ghazal, South Sudan April - June 2017

Western Bahr El Ghazal, South Sudan April - June 2017

Situation Overview: Western Bahr el Ghazal, South Sudan April - June 2017 SUDAN Introduction rest were interviewed in the collective centers Map 1: REACH assessment coverage of in the assessed settlements, as well as Western Bahr el Ghazal, June 2017 access to food and basic services for both Episodes of violence that occured in Wau (CCs) of Lokoloko (10), Cathedral (6), Hai internally displaced persons (IDPs) and local and Raga towns in April negatively affected Masna (5), and Nazareth (1). communities. displacement trends, population needs and In April, 84% of the interviewed KIs were newly humanitarian access in the entire Western arrived IDPs, in May 95% were new arrivals Population Movement and Bahr el Ghazal (WBeG) region. In the following and in June 90%. New arrivals are those who Displacement months, occasional episodes of conflict were had been interviewed within one month from reported and the security situation in WBeG their arrival at the location of the interview In April, WBeG experienced episodes of RAGA remained volatile, limiting humanitarian (PoCAA and CCs) and were therefore able to violence between armed actors in the towns of operations and putting livelihoods at risk. For share up-to-date information about their area JUR RIVER Raga and Wau that led to a large displacement humanitarian actors, access to and knowledge of knowledge (AoK), which in most cases of persons in the counties of Raga, Wau and WAU about areas outside of Wau town remained were the settlements they fled. The remaining Jur River. While the majority of IDPs sought limited. KIs, who were not new arrivals, all had recent refuge in Wau town, an unreported number information about certain settlements through fled to the bush and into other settlements. The To inform humanitarian actors working outside Settlement contact with someone (usually a relative) that general security situation in the towns seemed formal settlement sites, REACH has been Cover percentage of assessed settlements to have stabilised following a shift in security assessing hard-to-reach ares in WBeG since was living there at the time of data collection. relative to the OCHA (COD) total dataset: 0% 10.1 - 20% forces patrolling Wau town and an increase April 2017. This data is collected through REACH’s AoK methodology displays county 0.1 - 4.9% 20.1 - 50% of forces in Raga town. However, across interviews on a monthly basis from settlements level data when at least 5% of the total number 5 - 10% 50% the counties the feeling of insecurity and across the counties of Raga, Wau and Jur of settlements in a county were assessed. In unconfirmed episodes of violence remained. River in WBeG. April and May, the coverage of assessed an overview of the humanitarian situation in WBeG. The findings of each month were Displacement within Wau County Between 7 April and 27 June, REACH settlements was above 5% in Wau County, compared among each other and triangulated interviewed a total of 396 Key Informants while in June this threshold was attained in Displacement within Wau County has been with one focus group discussion (FGD) and (KIs) from 115 different settlements across both Wau and Raga Counties. Therefore, from occuring since July of 2016, but saw a new participatory mapping exercise at the end of Raga, Wau and Jur River counties. Forty- the month of June the county level analysis peak on 10 April 2017, following armed June as well as with secondary data collected eight settlements were assessed in April, 34 was conducted for both Wau and Raga while clashes in Wau town. in April and May it was conducted for Wau by UN agencies and NGOs. in May and 88 in June. Over the three months, This episode of violence forced over 17,000 County only. some of the settlements have been assessed The first section of this report analyses people to seek refuge in Wau town’s PoCAA multiple times through different KIs. 374 KIs This Situation Overview is the first of its kind displacement trends between the beginning and in the five CCs of Cathedral, Nazareth, were interviewed in the Wau Protection of for WBeG and uses data collected in the of April until the end of June and the second Lokoloko, St. Joseph and ECS.1 The largest Civilians Area Adjacent site (PoCAA), the months of April, May and June 2017 to provide section evaluates the population dynamics influx of IDPs was into the PoCAA,: which 1 IOM, DTM Records 13 April-19 May received roughly 13,000-14,000 new arrivals IDPs’ decision to seek refuge in the PoCAA and KM out of Wau’s town centre and characterised METHODOLOGY increasing the total population from 25,250 in the CCs remained unchanged over the months by fertile land ideal for agricultural activities. To provide an overview of the situation in March to a population of 39,165 in May.2 The and were reported to be access to security, as IOM head counts conducted between the 3rd partly inaccessible areas of Western Bahr el remaining IDPs sought refuge in CCs within reported as the primary pull factor by an average and 15th of June, counted 686 households of Ghazal, REACH uses primary data provided Wau town. Cathedral CC, which was the largest of 89% of interviewed KIs, and the access to a total of 4,210 individuals.6 IDPs registered in by key informants who have recently arrived, CC in Wau at the time of the assessment, was food distributions as the secondary pull factor ECS CC still had access to distributions taking or receive regular information, from their pre- estimated to have received around 4,000 new reported by 49% of KIs. While the security place in Hai Masna. displacement location or “Area of Knowledge”. arrivals, bringing its initial population of 6,000 situation appeared to have stabilised in Wau Due to the rather remote location of Hai Masna Information for this report was collected up to around 10,000 inhabitants. According to town the perceived risks prevailed throughout there were concerns that IDPs residing there from key informants in the Wau Protection estimates, the population of IDPs in Cathedral the months of April to June, an indicator that the of Civilians AA (PoCAA) site and in the five were not well protected and had limited access CC could be as high as 15,000 during the general feeling was that the situation remained to livelihoods, such as to daily wage labour collective centres in Wau throughout May 2017. 3 night. The swell in population at night could be volatile and could devolve again. in Wau town.7 Access to security was the After data collection was completed, all data accounted for by casual labourers who work Despite security remaining a key push factor primary pull factor for IDPs to Wau County. was examined at the settlement level, and outside of the CC during the day, only returning for displacement, the stabilizing security Due to the lack of protection in Hai Masna, it settlements were assigned the modal response. to the CC at night. However, because headcount situation allowed more IDPs to return home. was possible that, in case of new episodes of When no consensus could be found for a and flow monitoring are conducted during the IOM Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) violence and insecurity, IDPs residing in Hai settlement, that settlement was not included in day, these IDPs often go unaccounted for. The data showed that in May and June more Masna at the time of data collection would reporting. Descriptive statistics and geospatial situation was similar in the other CCs between analysis were then used to analyse the data. people were leaving the camps than entering return to Wau town to seek refuge in the PoCAA April and June, though the discrepancies were them4. According to FGD participants and or in one of the more centrally located CCs. It must be noted that this represents a change smaller. in methodology as of December 2016, humanitarian partners, IDPs have been exiting GFD and displacement patterns By the end of June it was estimated that the PoCAA and CCs and heading back to their as REACH previously analysed data at the Prior to April 2017, the IDPs in the Wau CCs over 60,000 IDPs were residing in protected previous locations. IOM DTM data showed that community level. This means that this report were receiving General Food Distributions and unprotected sites in Wau Town. the population in the CCs did not increase since is not directly comparable with Situation (GFDs) on a regular basis. Due to targeted Overviews from before December 2016. May and had actually been on a steady decrease For approximately 90% of the IDPs interviewed violence against humanitarian workers, GFDs throughout May and June.5 The reported Note that unless specified, data was averaged between April to June, insecurity was the in WBeG were suspended at the end of April reason in the IOM DTM data was primarily the across the three months and compared to primary reason why they had left their previous in all the sites excluding the PoC1 and PoCAA stabilisation of security in Wau County, where previous individual months’ data. location. While the main push factor was and were planned to resume when the security most IDPs came from. However, according to reported to be insecurity, an average of 42% situation improved. Only occasional, smaller FGD participants, the unpredictable security of the interviewed KIs between April and June scale food distributions done by individual Figure 1: Most often reported primary and situation created reluctance among some IDPs reported the lack of access to food as the NGOs and faith based institutions took place in secondary reason why new arrivals in June to return to their previous locations.

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    8 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us