YUSUF BATIL REFUGEE CAMP MULTI-SECTOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT SOUTH SUDAN

Transcription

1 YUSUF BATIL REFUGEE CAMP MULTI-SECTOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT SOUTH SUDAN ASSESSMENT REPORT NOVEMBER 2015

2 Cover photo: Maban, South Sudan Anna Banyard, October About REACH REACH is a joint initiative of two international non-governmental organizations - ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives - and the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT). REACH s mission is to strengthen evidencebased decision making by aid actors through efficient data collection, management and analysis before, during and after an emergency. By doing so, REACH contributes to ensuring that communities affected by emergencies receive the support they need. All REACH activities are conducted in support to and within the framework of interagency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information please visit our website: You can contact us directly at: geneva@reach-initiative.org and follow us on 1

3 SUMMARY Yusuf Batil Camp is one of four refugee camps in Maban County in South Sudan s Upper Nile State. The state houses over 133,236 refugees 1 who have fled primarily from the Bau area of Blue Nile State in neighbouring Sudan. 2 The first refugees arrived in Maban shortly after the outbreak of conflict between the Sudan People s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) and the army of Sudan in September Yusuf Batil refugee camp was opened in May 2012 and is the second largest refugee camp in the county after Doro 3. According to the latest figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 40,648 individuals currently reside in the camp. As the situation stabilizes from the emergency phase into the care and maintenance phase, information needs in Yusuf Batil are changing: with targeted distributions starting to replace blanket distributions 4, more granular data is required to understand household level needs. In order to address these information gaps, UNHCR requested a detailed multi-sector needs assessment of households within the camp, which was designed and implemented by REACH. Throughout the process, input from the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), who manage the camp, and other agencies such as Medair and ACTED has been instrumental to the development of the study. The assessment consisted of a large-scale household survey and four focus groups with refugees. Both components were undertaken in close cooperation with UNHCR, Yusuf Batil s camp management and community leaders (Sheiks 5 and Umdas 6 ). Primary data collection at household level took place between March and July Focus group discussions with refugees were held in September, in order to complement the household level findings and provide more detail where needed. The findings of this assessment contain critical information for all aid agencies operating in the camp, and seek to facilitate the timely provision of assistance to meet identified needs. Primary community concerns Security 7 (44%) and access to food 8 (38%) were the two most commonly reported priority needs of refugees in Yusuf Batil camp. Overall, the assessment highlighted the fact that while still in the protracted emergency phase of response, the provision of basic services in Yusuf Batil refugee camp could be generally improved. A high proportion of shelters were observed to be in poor condition, and access to water and WASH facilities (specifically latrines) is sometimes challenging. In addition, uneven access to basic services has been observed across several sectors. Findings presented in this report and the accompanying spatial analysis show the presence of several underserved areas, particularly in the southern parts of the camp. As blanket distributions are phased out, it is essential that targeted assistance is provided to those who need it most, particularly those living in these most underserved areas of the camp. According to refugees, a lack of security remains a primary concern. There is a general feeling of insecurity among the camp population, while a significant proportion of households have experienced a security incident, such as a robbery or damage inflicted on shelters. In the case of minor security incidents, Sheiks are generally the community s first point of contact, while the police is involved in more serious cases. While such measures could ensure the better resolution of conflict with host community, preventative measures should also be considered to ease existing tensions and avoid future incidents. In this respect, livelihood programming represents an important entry point, since competition over resources and livelihood opportunities is at the core of tensions between the host community and refugees. Specifically, the provision of additional vocational training schemes and village saving schemes could together build skills within the refugee community, and provide them with opportunities to create their own businesses. 1 UNHCR South Sudan Information Sharing Portal, updated on 31 July Yusuf Batil Camp Snapshot, October 2014, UNHCR. 3 Doro refugee camp currently houses 51,659 individuals according to UNHCR data, updated on 31 July Specific areas of concern: Shelter, FSL, Protection, Environment 5 Refugees within Yusuf Batil continue to use their existing tribal authority structures, principally through sheiks who are community leaders. 6 Each sheikh represents a village, and each umda represents a community 7 Security was defined as individual security and security of household and possessions (protection from physical harm and theft/destruction of property). 8 Access to food was defined as having enough to eat. 2

4 Key findings from specific sections in the assessment are summarised below and include the following: Household demographics The majority of Yusuf Batil s population (57%) is below the age of 18. Within this group, 17% are aged under four and 27% are aged Adults between the ages of year olds comprise a further 38% of the camp population. 65% of refugee households in Yusuf Batil are male-headed, and 35% female-headed. On average there are 4.7 individuals per household. Shelter Grass and wood (28%), and mud and wood structures (23%) are the two main types of shelter in Yusuf Batil. Sixteen percent of structures in the camp are still tents. Tarpaulin and wood structures account for 13% of shelters. Traditional shelters such as the Tukul made of mud, wood and grass, make up 13% of total shelters. Finally, Corrugated Galvanized Iron (CGI) structures account for only 8% of total structures. The majority of shelters in Yusuf Batil (51%) were reported to be in poor condition by enumerators. Only 13% were reported to be in good condition and 14% in great condition. WASH Tap stands are the most common source of drinking water for refugees in Yusuf Batil camp and were reported as the primary source by 99.2% of households. Only 0.8% of households reported using hand pumps as their main source of drinking water. 31% of surveyed households reported collecting water five times a day. One in five households reported waiting more than 45 minutes at water points, below the minimum SPHERE standard of a queuing time of less than 30 minutes. 9 While 40% of households reported using latrines built by NGOs for defecation, another 33% use latrines built by their community, and seven percent of households reported defecating in the open. Households practising open defecation were mainly located on the southern edge of the camp, and in the east, south of the market. All heads of household reported washing their hands at least once during the day; however, some variation was observed between the reported frequencies. The vast majority of interviewees (88%) reported washing their hands after defecating, however, a smaller proportion (78%) reported washing their hands before eating. Health Nearly half (48%) of surveyed households said that at least one member of their household had suffered from a disease or illness since coming to Yusuf Batil. The Medair Central Clinic was the most commonly reported health facility used when refugees were sick (55%), followed by the Medair West Clinic, reported by 28%. The planned departure of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Holland and the closure of its Gentil hospital at the end of 2015 is of high concern to refugees according to FGDs. Livelihoods A majority of households (60%) planted crops in the last year. The two most reported cultivated crops are maize (79%) and okra (77%). Crops are generally used for household consumption rather than selling according to FGD findings. FGD participants complained that while they had received seeds from NGOs, little was growing due to infertile land and unfavorable weather conditions. Ownership of livestock is less common than planting/cultivating in Yusuf Batil, with only 18% of heads of household reporting livestock ownership. Of those who own livestock, 83% herd goats and 23% herd sheep. Education Fourteen percent of interviewees said that school-age children in their household were not attending school. When asked why their children were not going to school, the most common response (66%) was that they did not want them to attend school with children from other communities. However, when asked in focus 9 3

5 group discussions, refugees said that they had no issue with this. Instead, participants pointed to the lack of clothes as well as sandals as the main barrier to non-attendance. This discrepancy in findings may be explained by an unwillingness to discuss community tensions in a group discussion. Protection Security incidents in the camp were reportedly experienced by 14 percent of households. Of those who experienced a security incident, 66% reported that their tent or shelter had been damaged or destroyed by someone else. The second most commonly reported security incident was robbery, reported by 52% of households. According to FGDs, fear of clashes with the host community was the main reported reason for feeling unsafe in Yusuf Batil. The majority of heads of household surveyed explained that they would report a security incident to their Sheik (98%) highlighting the importance of these community leaders in the functioning of the camp. Focus group discussions showed that if there is a serious security incident, the Sheik would then report to the Umda, and then to the police. 4

6 CONTENTS SUMMARY... 2 List of Acronyms... 6 Geographical Classifications... 6 List of Figures, Tables and Maps... 6 INTRODUCTION... 8 METHODOLOGY...10 FINDINGS...13 Camp and Household Demographics Shelter Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Access to Health Facilities Livelihoods Education Protection and Information Main Community Concerns CONCLUSION...34 ANNEXES...35 Annex 1: Maps Annex 2: Household Questionnaire Annex 3: Focus Group Discussion Guide

7 List of Acronyms CGI Corrugated Galvanized Iron DRC Danish Refugee Council FGD Focus Group Discussion HHH Head of Household JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency MSF Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors without Borders NCP National Congress Party NFI Non Food Items NGO Non-Governmental Organization ODK Open Data Kit SPLM/A Sudan People s Liberation Movement/Army UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees USAID United States Agency for International Development WASH Water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion WFP World Food Programme Geographical Classifications State Administration of local government including several Counties County Primary administrative level below the State including several Payams Payam Intermediate administrative level including several Bomas Boma Lowest level of local government administration 6

8 List of Figures, Tables and Maps Figure 1: Yusuf Batil camp population pyramid, disaggregated by age and sex Figure 2: Reported reasons for impairment of head of household Figure 3: Type of shelter present in Yusuf Batil Camp Figure 4: Shelter quality, by shelter type (based on enumerator observation) Figure 5: Origin of tents in Yusuf Batil camp Figure 6: Reported duration of seasonal flooding in the camp Figure 7: Average number of trips to fetch water per day, reported by households Figure 8: Quantity of water collected, by number of trips Figure 9: Reported length of time spent waiting at water source Figure 10: Reported usual location of defecation Figure 11: Reported hand-washing practices Figure 12: Reported use of health facilities Figure 13: Types of crop cultivated by household (multiple selection was allowed) Figure 14: Type of hivestock herd Figure 15: Reported reasons for children not attending school Figure 16: Type of Security Incident Figure 17: Reported reasons for ineffective response by community watch teams and police Figure 18: Most commonly listened to radio stations Figure 19: Primary concerns reported by refugee households Table 1: Dependency Ratios Map 1: Yusuf Batil Camp General Infrastructure... 9 Map 2: Yusuf Batil Camp's Village Communities Map 3: Shelter locations and population density in Yusuf Batil Camp Map 4: Reported primary source of shelter materials Map 5: Reported length of flood duration Map 6: Reported defecation locations in Yusuf Batil Camp Map 7: Distance from health centres in Yusuf Batil camp Map 8: Households reporting distance from school as a reason for child non-attendance Map 9: Location of reported security incidents in Yusuf Batil, by type Map 10: Reported priority needs in Yusuf Batil Camp Map 11: Household shelter type Map 12: Observed shelter quality Map 13: Reported preferred water point Map 14: Reported waiting times for water Map 15: Reported source of health assistance used Map 16: Reported reasons for not attending school Map 17: Reported Satisfaction with community policing

9 INTRODUCTION Following the independence of South Sudan in July 2011, conflict broke out between rebels belonging to the Sudan People's Liberation Army-North (SPLA-N) and the army of Sudan. Rising tensions began following a refusal to grant autonomy and repeated interferences into local government politics in Blue Nile State by the national Khartoum government. The Sudan People s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), who was leading the local government, refused to disarm after independence, and the government of Khartoum in turn refused to negotiate with the former rebels, instead cracking down on the ensuing dissent. The resulting conflict caused the wide-spread displacement of people from Blue Nile state over the border into South Sudan. 10 As of January 2015, about 180, refugees were estimated to have fled from Blue Nile State in Sudan to Upper Nile State in South Sudan. The majority of these refugees live in four refugee camps in Maban County: Doro, Kaya, Gendrassa and Yusuf Batil. Yusuf Batil camp was opened in May 2012, to accommodate the new influx of refugees that could no longer be sheltered in Doro and Jamman 12 camps, since both camps were at almost full capacity. Yusuf Batil is now the second biggest camp in Maban County with a total 40,648 individuals, according to the latest figures from UNHCR. More than three years since its establishment, UNHCR and NGOs present in Maban County report that the living conditions of refugees within camps continue to be difficult. With no end to the conflict in sight, refugees remain unable to go back to their homes resulting in an increasingly protracted displacement situation. In this context, a better knowledge and understanding of conditions within the camp is critical in order to improve the current situation as well as to facilitate a smooth transition from the emergency phase to the care and maintenance phase. Indeed, as Maban moves into a protracted emergency phase, funding has dwindled, increasing the importance of camp sweeps to inform the targeted distribution of humanitarian assistance and services. Further, a clear lack of information and data (both quantitative and qualitative) on specific camps, including Yusuf Batil, has left the humanitarian community largely unaware of the situation and needs of refugees. 13 This lack of both general and sector specific information impedes the continuation of an informed and appropriate response. In response to this information gap, REACH facilitated a large-scale household survey in order to provide quantitative data on conditions across the sectors of humanitarian response. The survey was conducted in close cooperation with UNHCR, Yusuf Batil s camp management (Danish Refugee Council) and community leaders, with primary data collected between March and August Focus group discussions were conducted in September 2015 to provide further qualitative data. The findings of this assessment contain critical information for all aid agencies operating in the camp, and seek to facilitate the timely provision of assistance to meet identified needs. This report provides a detailed description of the methodology and why it was chosen, followed by an overview of the key assessment findings, organised as follows: Household Demographics Shelter Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Health Livelihoods Education Protection and Information Main Community Concerns 10 For more information on the Blue Nile State conflict, see HSBA Working Paper 31: At an Impasse: The Conflict in Blue Nile Small Arms Survey According to the latest biometric records. 12 Jamman camp closed in 2013 due to wide-scale flooding. Its inhabitants were relocated to Kaya camp. 13 More studies have been conducted in Gendrassa and Kaya refugee camps, for example: REACH (2014) Gendrassa Camp Profile Report 8

10 Map 1: Yusuf Batil Camp General Infrastructure 9

11 METHODOLOGY The objective of this assessment was to gain a greater understanding of the living conditions of refugees within Yusuf Batil camp. The methodology for the assessment was decided by UNHCR prior to REACH s involvement in order to allow the results to synchronise with ProGres 14 data. The assessment used a mixed methods approach to data collection, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative primary data. First, a household survey was undertaken in the refugee camp. This was followed by four focus group discussions which were held within the camp with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of issues highlighted in the survey data. DRC led the creation of the household survey questionnaire with input from other humanitarian partners in Maban. The focus group discussion guide was developed by REACH with input from several implementing partners. Timeline February: Recruitment and training of enumerators and community buy-in March 2 nd July 7 th : Household survey data collection August-September: Analysis of data; Draft report October: Focus Group Discussions (FGDs); Analysis of FGDs November: Final draft report Household Survey Definition of Household: For the purposes of the survey, a household was defined as the number of people under one ration card. Therefore, if one shelter structure contained several ration cardholders, then each one was asked to respond to the survey and was considered a household by itself. The household survey consisted of 76 questions covering multiple sectors including demographics, shelter, WASH, heath, education, protection and livelihoods. The data was collected by 22 enumerators using the Open Data Kit (ODK) software on smartphones. GPS data was collected for every household interviewed. Questions were designed for numerical, yes/no or multiple choice answers, resulting in a quantitative database of responses and allowing for quantitative and spatial analysis of results. Analysis and descriptive statistics were generated using Excel, while the spatial analysis was completed using the Arc GIS software. Data collection started on the 2 nd of March 2015 and lasted 4 months. Prior to data collection, the 22 enumerators were trained for two days on the questionnaire and the use of ODK on smartphones. The training included one day of field training, where the questionnaire was piloted. REACH hired temporary staff among the Yusuf Batil refugee population and nearby host community to act as enumerators. The assessment aimed to cover every household in Yusuf Batil camp. However, due to internal movement within the camp, between camps, and temporary returns to Sudan it was not possible to interview every single household. In addition, the organic and transient nature of the camp, with no formal address system, meant that some households may have been inadvertently missed. In order to minimize this, supervisors did return visits to the villages assessed, asking sheiks if all HHs had been interviewed as well as by asking random households if they had been interviewed. Households interviewed 7,508 Focus groups discussions held 4 Yusif Batil Camp is organised into community villages, each of which is headed by a particular sheikh (community leader). Each enumerator was assigned to an individual sheikh, and they would interview each household in that sheikh s village. All villages are shown in Map UNHCR s global registration system. 10

12 Map 2: Yusuf Batil Camp's Village Communities 11

13 Representativeness The initial raw sample consisted of 7,508 households. The normal data cleaning process eliminated 319 of these records. The analysed dataset therefore consisted of 7,189 records. The survey is therefore representative at a 99% confidence level with a 0.72 margin of error. Focus Group Discussions Four focus group discussions (FGDs) were held in October REACH randomly selected four sheiks from different villages within the camp who were tasked to mobilize 8 to 9 people each (both men and women) to participate in the discussions. The FGDs were held in DRC s field office in Yusuf Batil camp. A focus group discussion tool was created which received input from DRC and other NGOs working in Yusuf Batil (see annex). Limitations Communication with enumerators while in the field collecting data was limited as cellphone reception was nonexistent and budget limitations meant that it was not possible to give radios to each of them. Therefore, communication was mostly done by direct contact, which two field coordinators were tasked to do. This means that each field coordinator had to manage between 5 to 10 enumerators spread out over a camp of over 40,000 people, where they could easily disappear and as a result, it was not always possible to effectively monitor enumerator performance. In order to mitigate potential data collection issues, data quality was monitored on a daily basis and enumerators were briefed every morning. The pool of candidates from which to select enumerators generally had low levels of education and low levels of literacy in English. Therefore, training the enumerators, many of whom had never used a smart phone before, took longer than expected, and some of them experienced difficulties in performing their assigned tasks effectively. Daily briefings with the team allowed enumerators to ask questions about particular problems they may have encountered in the field, or clarify some of the assessment questions they found complicated. The REACH team did not have a permanent office on site, therefore had to relocate every day to DRC s satellite office in the camp during business hours. The REACH team had to transport all materials from their base in Gendrassa to the camp each morning, and retrieve them before the end of business day. Coordinating activities proved difficult, due to both a lack of reliable transportation in and out of the camp and the inability to communicate with enumerators other than by word of mouth. If an enumerator could not make it back to the site by the prescribed time at the end of a day, they would have no contact with the REACH team until the next morning at the earliest. This meant that time to work on the assessment per day was limited. Daily targets (7 to 9 household assessment per day) were set to make sure that no time was wasted while the enumerators were in the field. Security problems such as incidents between host communities and refugees as well as local militia conflicts restricted the team s access to the camp for both quantitative data collection as well as to conduct the FGDs. This created delays in data collection. However, in order to continue data collection in periods of tension between host communities and refugees, refugees kept collecting data in the camp, while host community staff were in the office helping with administrative or human resources issues. As a result, the assessment did not come to a halt. Limited financial resources meant it was difficult to collect data in a shorter timeframe. For future assessments, selecting a representative sample of households within the camp will prove more cost and time effective. 12

14 FINDINGS This section presents the main findings from the assessment of Yusuf Batil refugee camp. It begins with a section detailing general demographic information; then describes sector-specific findings, including shelter, water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion (WASH), health, livelihoods, education and protection findings. The final section describes the main concerns, as reported by assessed households in Yusuf Batil. Camp and Household Demographics This section of the report provides an overview of the main demographic characteristics of refugee households surveyed in Yusuf Batil camp including a population breakdown by sex and age; information on the sex of heads of household; household size and composition. General Camp Demographics Age and Sex Distribution The population pyramid below shows the age and sex distribution of Yusuf Batil s refugee population. It is clear from this that the majority of the population in the camp (57%) are under the age of 17. Among these children, 17% is aged under four, and 27% is aged 5 to 11. Figure 1: Yusuf Batil camp population pyramid, disaggregated by age and sex 60+ 3% 2% % 20% % 7% % 13% % 7% Male Female The table below shows the dependency ratios of children under 18, elderly over 60, and the total age dependency ratio for Yusuf Batil, calculated using the population data collected. The age dependency ratio compares the number of people of non-working age (children and elderly) to the number of people of working age (18-59) who support them. As an example, the age dependency ratio of mean that every 100 individuals of working age support individuals of non-working age. These figures are significantly higher than national dependency ratios for South Sudan: for 2014, World Bank data shows a total age dependency ratio of 85 for South Sudan. Table 1: Dependency Ratios Child dependency ratio Old age dependency ratio 5.7 Total age dependency ratio The dependency ratio is an age-population ratio of those typically not in the labor force (dependents) and those typically in the labor force (productive individuals). It is used to measure the pressure on productive population. The (total) dependency ratio can be decomposed into the child dependency ratio and the old age dependency ratio. 13

15 Household Composition Head of Households and Number of Household Members The survey found that 65% of refugee households in Yusuf Batil had a male head of the household, and 35% a female head of the household. Within the camp large households are common. On average there are 4.7 members per household. Male-headed households have on average 4.6 members while female-headed households have on average 4.2 members. Impairment of Head of Household Only a minority (4%) of the heads of household (HHHs) reported having an impairment or disability. Among female heads of household, three percent reported an impairment, and among male heads of household, five percent reported an impairment. The most common types of impairments were physical (47%), visual (25%), mental/intellectual (15%) and related to chronic disease (14%). Findings reveal that 19% percent of household heads with an impairment reported several impairments, suggesting that these individuals are likely to be particularly vulnerable. Although, heads of household reporting impairment represent a minority, nearly half of this group have nobody else in their household over the age of 16 available to care for them. One major cause of reported impairment is disease, reported as the reason for impairment by 31% of those with a disability. A quarter of respondents said the cause of impairment was unknown, while a further 19% said that the head of household was born with the impairment. Figure 2: Reported reasons for impairment of head of household 31% 25% 19% 12% 7% 4% 2% 1% Disease Unknown They were born with it War related injury Accidental injury Attacked by a civilian Attacked by an animal Other Population Density As an unplanned camp that was naturally settled, Yusuf Batil s population is distributed unevenly across the camp and remains the most congested of all of the camps in Maban County. The population of Yusuf Batil is primarily concentrated in the northern half of the camp, particularly along the camp s main arterial road between the Darfur market along the main road, and the NGO offices closer to the centre of the camp. The population in the camp s southern regions is more dispersed, although there are some more densely populated areas near the secondary distribution site and the WFP rub hall. 14

16 Map 3: Reported shelter ownership per household 15

17 Shelter This section of the report provides an overview of the main shelter types within Yusuf Batil camp, their condition, the source of the materials used to build them as well as the origin of tents. In 2014, UNHCR and implementing partners DRC and ACTED, started providing substitute transitional shelters to improve the living conditions of Sudanese refugees in Maban. At the time, 79% of refugees were still living tents, but many of these emergency shelters were worn out, since they had been received upon refugees arrival in the camp in 2011 and Shelter kits provided to beneficiaries in Yusuf Batil camp consisted of local wooden poles, sticks (wall fillers), nails, hoop iron and corrugated iron sheets for roofing. 16 Shelter Types Around half of households in Yusuf Batil (51%) live in one of two main shelter typologies: grass and wood (28%), and mud and wood structures (23%). Sixteen percent of structures in the camp are still tents (either from UNHCR, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) or NGOs), while Corrugated Galvanized Iron (CGI) structures account for eight percent of total structures. Traditional shelters such as the round tukul made of mud, wood and grass, account for 13% of total shelters. Figure 3: Type of shelter present in Yusuf Batil Camp 28% 23% 13% 13% 13% 8% 2% 1% Shelter (Grass and Wood) Shelter (Mud and Wood) Shelter (Tarpulin and Wood) Round Tukul (mud, wood, grass) UNHCR Tent UNHCR CGI Shelter Tent (Japanese) Tent (Other NGO) Map 11 (see Annex 1) shows clearly that mud-built structures are more common in the northern areas of the camp than elsewhere. There are very few mudded structures around the primary refugee market and there is a greater reliance on UNHCR tents in the northern areas of the camp. Shelter Condition Based on direct observation of enumerators, the majority of shelters in Yusuf Batil were judged to be in poor condition (51%). 17 Only 13 percent are in good condition 18 and 14 percent in great condition 19. When disaggregated by type of shelter, the data shows that CGI shelters are in the best condition, with 64% of these shelters estimated to be in great condition. Grass and wood-built shelters and UNHCR tents represent those shelters in the poorest condition, with 64% and 63% respectively judged to be in poor condition. Discussions with shelter partners revealed that in 2014, while mudding of shelters was done for vulnerable families, resulting in a full completed shelter; for others only the skeleton and the roof of the shelter was built. Households were given wall fillers as part of their shelter kits, but partners soon realised that beneficiaries were not mudding structures their own structures properly, and would therefore deteriorate fast. In addition, the shelter design was changed early 2014 from a timber structure (made of cut wood from the market) to local wooden poles due to declining timber supplies in the market. 20 The use of local wood instead of better quality timber proved to be 16 South Sudan, Factsheet, September 2014, UNHCR 17 Poor condition: Structure is in terrible shape. Large holes or destroyed mudding in walls and roof, missing door. Large, un-patchable holes. Structure is in danger of collapse/severe deterioration. No permanent fixes can salvage structure/ need to build a new one. 18 Good condition: Structure may have a hole in the roof or wall, or need more mudding in a few places, but is still a serviceable structure that does not need urgent repairs. Some wear, if a tent, but no unpatched holes. 19 Great condition: Solid structure, no holes in walls or roof, no repairs needed. Like new, if a tent. 20 South Sudan, Factsheet, September 2014, UNHCR 16

18 problematic, due to its greater vulnerability to termite damage and humidity. As a result, the next shelter program in Yusuf Batil camp will revert to a design using cut timber rather than local wood. Another potential issue that may have affected the quality of shelters in Yusuf Batil was due to the way in which materials were distributed. In 2014, shelter materials were distributed to sheiks who, in some cases, failed to properly distribute it to beneficiaries, leaving beneficiaries with lower quantities than initially planned by shelter actors. While empowering communities to participate and facilitate the aid process is necessary, monitoring and evaluation of such processes must be in place to mitigate its diversion. Figure 4: Shelter quality, by shelter type (based on enumerator observation) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CGI 64% Shelter (Grass and Wood) Shelter (Tarpulin and Wood) Tent (Japanese) Tent (Other NGO) Poor Fair Good Great Shelter (Mud and Wood) Round Tukul (mud, wood, grass) 63% UNHCR Tent Map 12 (see Annex 1) demonstrates that the southern area of the camp suffers the most from poor quality housing. Good quality shelters tend to be clustered in a few pockets, mainly south of the refugee market, around the NGO offices, and east of the community center and secondary refugee market. Source of Shelter Materials and Tents The survey also examined the origin of the materials refugees used to build their shelters. Results showed that 43 percent of shelter material comes from the bush in refugee camp land and 29 percent comes from the bush, but from host community land. 21 The refugee market (22%) and NFI distributions (13%) are also common sources of material for shelter construction. Only one percent of shelter material reportedly came from friends or was inherited. Map 4 shows that the shelters in the north west of the camp report that majority of their materials come from NGO support, while households in the rest of the camp source material primarily from the bush. The prevalence of the bush as the main source of materials to construct shelters corresponds with respondents preference (and custom) for grass and wood structures. However, secondary research, interviews with partners and focus group discussions revealed that going to the bush to collect wood and grass is considered particularly dangerous. Refugees fear attack, while women reported fear sexual assault if they encounter host communities in the bush. Initially, the Mabanese authorities requested that refugees only cut certain trees and to try to use branches for firewood instead of destroying the entire plant. However according to these same authorities, refugees failed to abide by these rules and in July 2012, the cutting of all trees was strictly forbidden by the Ministry of Forestry. 22 This has led to an increase in tensions and means refugees are also worried about being arrested by authorities when sourcing materials from the bush. Concerning the origin of tents in Yusuf Batil camp, the overwhelming majority of them were received through UNHCR or DRC distributions (91%). A small proportion of tents was bought in refugee markets (6%). 21 Host community land use by refugees may be underreported. 22 Displacement, Disharmony and Disillusion. Understanding Host-Refugee Tensions in Maban County, South Sudan. Danish Demining Group. 17

19 Map 4: Reported primary source of shelter materials 18

20 Figure 5: Origin of tents in Yusuf Batil camp 1% 1% 6% 91% Friend/Inherited Host Community Market Refugee Market UNHCR/DRC Distribution Number of Shelters per Household Map 3 shows a density analysis using the number of reported shelters by households in Yusuf Batil camp. It considers both the number of reported shelters per household and household s proximity to each other, offering a proxy for shelter density within the camp. The map shows high concentrations primarily in the northern parts of the camp where markets and NGO facilities are located. The southern regions of the camp are significantly less populated, aside from the area near the secondary distribution site. Flood Duration Like much of Maban, Yusuf Batil camp is located on a flood plain, and there are often large amounts of standing water that make the camp difficult to access during the wet season. Households were asked about the length of time that long standing or stagnant water had remained on their plot of land during the 2014 wet season. Results showed that more than half of households (52%) had experienced flooding in their current location. For these households, the amount of time standing water had remained varied between one week or less to more than two months. In general, most households who had standing water on their plot of land, reported that it stayed for one week or less (29%), however, eight percent of households reported that water remained for one month or more. Figure 6: Reported duration of seasonal flooding in the camp 48% 29% 11% 5% 1% 3% 4% No flooding One week or less One to two weeks Two to three weeks One month One to two months More than two months Map 5 highlights that the areas south of the primary market and the southern half of the camp experienced the most severe flooding. However, there was also significant flooding on the northern edge of the camp near the main road and around the community centre in the centre of the camp. 19

21 Map 5: Reported length of flood duration 20

22 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) This sub-section looks at access to water, sanitation and hygiene within Yusuf Batil refugee camp. It first examines the population s access to water and then their sanitation and hygiene practices. WASH programs in Yusuf Batil are implemented by Medair. Access to Water Water Sources An overwhelming majority (99.2%) of households use tapstands as their main source of drinking water. Only 0.8 percent of households said that they used handpumps as their main source of drinking water. In terms of proximity, tapstands were also the nearest source of water for 99% of households. Nine percent of households using tapstands as their main source of water are using Tapstand 2. Map 13 (see Annex 1) shows that this tapstand is located between the primary market and DRC s field office, which is one of the busiest areas/intersections of the camp. On average, each tapstand was used by 2 percent of surveyed households. For the few households using handpumps, more than half (51%) were using Handpump 2 and 19 percent were using Handpump 4. Number of Collection Trips, Waiting Times and Quantity of Water Collected While an overwhelming majority of households are either using tapstands or handpumps to access water (only one head of household replied that they got water from rain-water puddles), the amount of trips per day to collect water and waiting times at water points are both significant. Indeed, 31 percent of surveyed households make on average five trips a day to get water. Figure 7: Average number of trips to fetch water per day, reported by households 31% % households 7% 18% 22% 22% Figure 8: Quantity of water collected, by number of trips 58% 59% 61% 50% % households 30% 7% 5% 12% 17% 13% 41% 34% 21% 4% 40% 38% 10% 1% 0% 1% Litres Litres Litres 61 or more Litres As for waiting times, half of households interviewed say that they generally wait between 15 to 30 minutes at the water source to get water. More than 30 percent wait less than 15 minutes. However, 17 percent wait between 45 21

23 minutes to an hour, and one percent of households wait for more than an hour. According to SPHERE standards, queuing time at a water source should be no more than 30 minutes 23. As explained in the SPHERE handbook, potential negative results of excessive queuing times include reduced per capita water consumption, increased consumption from unprotected surface sources, and reduced time for other essential survival tasks for those who collect water. Map 14 (see Annex 1) reveals that longest waiting times for water occur in the south western region of the camp. Areas east of the community centre appear to be stressed as well, possibly due to the limited number of sources. In the FGDs, refugees explained that having operators switch off water at certain hours of the day is inconvenient and means that they either have to wait for the water to be switched on again or have to walk to the next village where water is available. This was confirmed through discussions with WASH partners who said that the fact that operators close valves at certain times of the day could lead to an increase in waiting times at water points. Therefore, if it is not possible to guarantee the community access to water all the time, it is necessary to improve the water storage capacity of each household and ensure good storage practices (keeping containers clean, etc.). Figure 9: Reported length of time spent waiting at water source 32% 51% 6% 11% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than 15 minutes 15 to 30 minutes 31 to 45 minutes 45 minutes to an hour More than an hour Sanitation and Hygiene Excreta Disposal Findings reveal that 40% of households defecate in latrines built by NGOs. Another 33% are using latrines built by their community. It is to be noted however, that seven percent of households reported defecating in the bush. This relatively large proportion of people defecating in the open air increases the risk of spreading infectious diarrhoeal diseases such as cholera. In order to reduce the number of people defecating in the open air, additional latrines should be built and additional hygiene education programmes should be put in place to discuss the dangers of such a practice and how it can be reduced. FGD participants mentioned that many latrines were full, and even when the community dug their own holes, NGOs do not always come to finish the latrine construction. Despite the presence of open air defecation, this practice appears to be localised (see map 6, overleaf); mainly taking place in the south of the camp, to the south of the secondary distribution site, and west of the primary refugee market. Conversations with WASH partners revealed that at the time of data collection, Medair was about to begin work on latrines in this area, suggesting that prior awareness of this issue already existed. In addition, in January and February 2015, Medair started trying to shift the construction of latrines from tarpaulin to locally sourced materials to make them cheaper and more sustainable. However, the NGO faced some resistance from Sheiks who were reluctant to change, particularly in the South of the camp. Therefore, fewer latrines were built during that period. Since then, the shift to locally available materials has been accepted by the refugee community in Yusuf Batil. 19 percent of heads of household reported defecating in family-owned and constructed latrines, the preferred option where possible according to SPHERE standards. Map 6 shows the three different latrine types to have distinct clustering patterns. Communal and family latrine use is most popular in the north and south-western areas of the camp, while NGO latrines are more commonly used in the central and western areas of the camp

24 Map 6: Reported defecation locations in Yusuf Batil Camp 23

25 Figure 10: Reported usual location of defecation % household heads 40% 33% 19% Latrine built by NGO Latrine built by community Family-owned and constructed latrine 7% Bush Hand-washing In general, refugees in Yusuf Batil camp tend to wash their hands at several key moments of the day. The most commonly reported times for washing hands are: in the morning (89%); after defecating (88%); and before cooking (88%). In addition, 78% of interviewees reported washing their hands before eating. However, washing hands after cleaning children s faeces was not reported by 26 percent of surveyed households, a practice that is particularly important for the prevention of cholera. The organization of additional hygiene promotion sessions could be used to promote hand washing throughout the day. Figure 11: Reported hand-washing practices 89% 88% 88% 78% 75% 74% In the morning After defecating Before cooking Before eating Before breastfeeding After cleaning child's faeces The most common method of hand washing is to use soap and water (80%). Nearly one fifth (19%) of surveyed households say that they use ash to wash their hands, while one percent reported using only water. The latter is typically considered less effective than using a rubbing agent, such as soap, mud or ash. Studies show that the use of mud, ash and soap all achieve the same level of cleanliness. 24 When asked about what they thought about using ash to wash their hands, FGD participants said they usually did it when there was no soap but preferred using the latter as it felt and smelt cleaner. Overall, more may need to be done to encourage hand washing before eating, before breastfeeding and after cleaning child s faeces. Furthermore, additional activities to stress the links between hand washing and its positive effects on both individual and family health may be beneficial. Access to Health Facilities This sub-section looks at the incidence of health problems (disease/illness) among refugees since their arrival to Yusuf Batil refugee camp as well as the health facilities they used when they were sick. Within Yusuf Batil Camp, three large clinics are operated by Medair. These are Medair Central, Medair West and Medair South, as shown in Map 7. These clinics are primary health care centres treating outpatients only. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Holland runs a hospital just outside of Yusuf Batil camp (Gentil Hospital) and focuses on providing secondary healthcare to mothers and children from Yusuf Batil and Gendrassa refugee camps as well as surrounding host communities. For more serious cases needing an operating theatre, MSF Batil refers patients to Bunj Hospital. According to MSF Holland, the main health challenge for Yusuf Batil camp during the rainy season between July and October, is Malaria. During the dry season, malnutrition and diarrhoea are the most common health problems in the community

26 Map 7: Distance from health centres in Yusuf Batil camp 25

27 Occurrence of Disease/Illness and Health Facilities Used Nearly half (48%) of surveyed households said that at least one member of their household had suffered from a disease or illness since coming to Yusuf Batil. The survey asked households whether any member of their household had been ill since coming to the camp and which health facility they had used. The majority of refugees reported having visited the Medair Central Clinic when they were sick (55%) followed by Medair West Clinic (28%). Another nine per cent said that they went to MSF Holland Hospital for treatment. The local hospital (Bunj/SP Hospital) was only used by four per cent of sick refugees. Figure 12: Reported use of health facilities 55% 28% 9% 4% 1% 1% 1% Medair Central Clinic Map 15 (see Annex 1) shows that the Medair West clinic is used by refugees living in the western half of the camp, whilst Medair Central is used by refugees from the northeast and south of the camp. Medair South Clinic was closed for the majority of the survey which is why there is a lower number of reported referrals. Conversations with Medair project managers confirmed that the majority of patients for Medair South during this period were referred to Medair Central Clinic. Livelihoods This sub-section serves as a preliminary examination of livelihoods, focusing on cultivating and herding within Yusuf Batil refugee camp. Employment According to a Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment conducted in Maban County in January 2015, % of male refugees and 50.3% percent of female refugees in Maban have no source of income. This varies across the county: 67% of refugees from Gendrassa, 52% of refugees from Doro, 50% of refugees from Kaya and 42% percent of refugees from Batil reportedly have no source of income. Although Yusuf Batil camp has the lowest proportion of people with no source of income, amongst all four camps, livelihood opportunities are scarce. The assessment found that the main reasons for unemployment are the lack of available jobs, lack of education and lack of skills. According to refugees from Yusuf Batil, the main livelihood activities within the camp include selling coffee/tea, or owning small shops 26. However, refugees claim that these activities are limited as very few people have enough resources to start such businesses. FGDs also revealed that most cultivating/planting of crops and herding is done for personal consumption rather than to be sold. The following sections look at these two activities in more detail. Cultivation Medair West Clinic MSF Holland Hospital Bunj/SP Hospital Traditional healer IMC Clinic Other Crop cultivation in the Maban refugee camps has become critical over the last year due to cuts of up to 30% of refugees World Food Programme (WFP) rations. 27 As an alternative, humanitarian partners are looking at longterm, more sustainable solutions, particularly the acquisition of land for refugees to farm. In 2015, the refugee 25 Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment in Maban, Upper Nile, South Sudan, Danish Refugee Council, January Focus group discussions with refugees from Yusuf Batil camp, conducted in October Increasing malnutrition in Maban ; rations to be cut. Radio Tamazuj. 16 Jun

28 community acquired about 45 square kilometres of land for Batil, Gendrassa and Kaya camps for agriculture. Vegetable and staple crop seeds were distributed to both the host and refugee communities for the 2015 planting season. A majority of households (60%) reported they had planted something in the last year. Of these, 79 percent said they cultivated maize crops and 77 percent cultivated okra crops. Other major types of cultivated crops include sorghum and beans. According to the survey results, in general refugee camp land is used for cultivation (92%). Only 10 percent of crops were cultivated on host community land and three percent were cultivated on communal land. Figure 13: Types of crop cultivated by household (multiple selection was allowed) 79% 77% % households growing crops 54% 35% 21% 18% 15% 9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 3% 3% Although a majority of households reported having planted something in the last year, focus group discussions showed that this was generally done for the household s own consumption. In addition, FGD participants complained that, while they had received seeds from aid agencies, the soil was infertile and weather conditions had been unfavourable, affecting their harvest. Discussion with Food Security and Livelihood experts demonstrated that while weather conditions in 2015 were unfavourable for cultivation, the land in the area is not infertile. Soil and water conservation techniques coupled with basic agronomy practices should be sufficient to alter the effects of such weather conditions. Herding Ownership of livestock was less common than planting/cultivating in Yusuf Batil with only 18% of heads of household reporting they owned livestock. Of these, 83% herd goats and 23% herd sheep. In tems of land used for herding, livestock owners often use a combination of refugee camp land (66%) and communal land (56%). Only 10% reported using host community land. Figure 14: Type of hivestock herd 83% % households with livestock 27% 18% 14% 7% Goats Sheep Donkey Cows Camels 27

29 Education This sub-section looks at the level of school attendance by school-aged children within Yusuf Batil as well as reasons for non-attendance. Level of Attendance and Reasons for Non-Attendance Fourteen percent of interviewees said they had children of school age in their household who were not attending school. When asked why their children were not going to school, the most common response (66%) was that they did not want them to mix with children of other communities. When this data was mapped (see map 16 in Annex 1), it showed that this specific reason was prominent around the edges of the camp. This indicates that there may be issues between specific communities in these areas and that this could be mitigated through social cohesion programming. On the other hand, FGD participants reported that there were no problems between children of different communities at school, indicating either that this issue may have been too sensitive to discuss in a group setting, or that families reporting this were not included in the focus group discussions. Further, 29% of interviewees reported that children were working (either from home, at the market, or tending livestock) as a reason for not attending school. Map 16 shows that households reporting children working instead of going to school are primarily located in the southwest of the camp. Another commonly reported reason for nonattendance was the fact that the school was too far (18%). As we can see in the map 8, overleaf, many of these households (especially in the west of the camp) are in fact quite close to schools. Figure 15: Reported reasons for children not attending school % households with out of shcool children 66% I don't want them The school is too to attend school far with children of other communities 18% 17% They must work form home/gather water, firewood, sand 13% The quality of the school is not very good 8% They must tend livestock 5% They are too old They must work at to go to school in the market the camp 3% 2% 1% Only boys can attend school Other In FGDs, however, it was common to hear from participants that an important reason why some children were not being sent to school was due to lack of clothes or sandals. Children being hungry at school was also mentioned as a problem and participants suggested having schools serve breakfast to students to remedy this. 28

30 Map 8: Households reporting distance from school as a reason for child non-attendance 29

31 Protection and Information This sub-section outlines assessment findings related to protection. It explores who or which institution refugees can reach out to in order to report security incidents. It also explores refugees opinion of protection mechanisms within and outside the camp. In addition, it looks at refugees main sources of information. Security Incidents, Protection and Reporting Mechanisms Occurrence and Type of Security Incidents The data revealed that 14% of households have experienced a security related incident in the camp. When asked what happened, a majority of the heads of household replied that their shelter had been damaged or destroyed (66% of this group). The second most common security incident was robbery (52%) followed by physical attacks (12%). Finally, only two percent of security incidents were said to be harassment cases. However, there is a high possibility that many harassment cases are left unreported. Figure 16: Type of Security Incident 66% % households reporting security incidents 52% 12% 2% 1% Tent damaged/destroyed Robbery Physical attack Harassment Other Map 9, overleaf, shows that the majority of security incidents occurred in the south west of the camp, around Medair West Clinic and near the Darfur market on the main road. This suggests that these incidents may be the result of conflict with host communities. Proximity to host communities was confirmed to be a problem by participants of FGDs. One participant said We have a lot of problems with host community because we are on the outskirts of the camp. Tensions and security incidents between refugees and host communities are commonplace in Maban. While at first the local population was willing to embrace refugees coming to Maban, as time passed and the influx of refugees continued, perceived inequalities and competition for resources started causing tensions. 28 In March 2014, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) reported that hostilities between host communities and refugees in Maban were escalating and resulting in the burning of houses, tents, and warehouses belonging to both refugees and the local community. Specifically, last year tensions were high in Yusuf Batil as residents demanded that refugees evacuate the area, causing nearly 8,000 refugees to flee. 29 The FGDs revealed that fear of clashes with the host community was still prominent within the camp. One participant said on that topic: We fled war to find peace, but what we have here is worse. We want security here. 28 Displacement, Disharmony and Disillusion. Understanding Host-Refugee Tensions in Maban County, South Sudan. Danish Demining Group. 29 South Sudan Crisis Fact Sheet #35, USAID, March 28,

32 Map 9: Location of reported security incidents in Yusuf Batil, by type 31

33 Protection and Reporting Mechanisms The majority of heads of household surveyed said that they would report an incidence of harassment to their sheik (98%). Only two percent said they would report it to their umda. This highlights the importance of the sheik s role in each community in the camp. Indeed, the survey also found that heads of households generally confide deep, personal matters to their sheik more than to a member of their family (97% and 37% respectively). In the FGDs, participants explained that they would automatically report a security incident to their sheik and if it was serious, the sheik would report it to the umda. If both the sheik and the umda were unable to solve the incident then it would be reported to the police. Heads of household were also asked to rate the effectiveness of community watch teams and police in limiting security issues within the camp. More than half (58%) said it was ok, but could be better, 39% reported it was good, two percent said it was poor and finally one percent claimed that their community was not doing anything to provide security. The main reasons why community actors are seen as ineffective are because they are deemed not committed or consistent (36%) or not professional/competent (26%). The problem of corruption was cited by 19 percent of head of households as a reason for the ineffectiveness of the response of community actors. Overall, map 17 (see Annexe 1) shows that refugees perceive that there is still room for improvement in the quality of community watch teams and police. The northern section of the camp is most concerned with non-representation and having conflicting interests, while others regard them as being unprofessional or incompetent, or corrupt. With regards the police, FGD participants said that in their opinion, the police generally took the side of the host community when there was a security incident between refugees and host community. Figure 17: Reported reasons for ineffective response by community watch teams and police 36% % households reporting ineffective response by watch teams or police 26% 19% 13% 3% 3% They are not committed or consistent They are not professional or competent They are too corrupt They do not represent the community I do not trust them They have conflicting interests Information Sources The importance of the sheik s role in each community in the camp is also confirmed by the fact that a majority (91%) of households primarily get their information from them. Only 8.5% said they get their information from the radio. However, more than 63% of interviewed heads of households said they have access to a radio 30. Radio stations most listened to by refugees in Yusuf Batil camp are Radio Salaam 31 (83%) followed by Radio Tabanga (49%). 30 Access does not necessarily mean that the radio belong to the HH, it could be a neighbors radio, a radio in a café etc 31 Radio Salaam is a radio station independently operated by a group of youth from refugee and host community trained by ACTED. It broadcasts general and community news, as well as information on education, health issues, women's concerns, and youth related matters. 32

34 Figure 18: Most commonly listened to radio stations 83% 49% 37% 35% 14% 5% Radio Salaam Radio Dabanga Radio Omdermum Radio Miria BBC Radio Voice of America Radio Main Community Concerns The survey asked heads of household to prioritise their current needs. The primary reported concern was security 32 (44%) followed by access to food (38%). The prominence of security concerns among refugees in Yusuf Batil is in part due to the direct experience of security incidents in the camp reported by 14% of households and in part due to an overall feeling of insecurity, with FGD participants mentioning that they felt unsafe as they would often hear about security incidents. Security incidents may refer to incidents either within the camp, or as a result of tensions with the host community over scarce natural resources. This highlights the need for social cohesion programmes to address the causes of these tensions, as well as to deal with tensions more effectively when they arise. Another factor affecting internal security incidents is the fact that government police are unable to intervene in the camp, while community policing and watch teams are perceived as inefficient. Although in a protracted emergency phase of the response, food is still reported as a priority need by 38% of refugees in Yusuf Batil camp. An assessment specifically focused on food security is of utmost necessity to inform a more effective response and target the people most in need, especially now that blanket distributions have ceased. Access to education was considered the greatest need by 13% of interviewed households. The education section of this report shows that many households have school-aged children not attending school. Major reasons for non-attendance include having to mix with other communities, the distance to school and the need for children to work. Finally, access to NFIs, healthcare, water and employment are not considered areas of priority need (only 1% each) but assessment results show that improvement is needed in all of these sectors. Figure 19: Primary concerns reported by refugee households 44% 38% 13% 1% 1% 1% 1% Security Access to food Access to education Access to NFI's Access to healthcare Access to water Access to employment When these findings are visualized on a map, data show that security is reported as being a greater need around the boundaries of the camp (see Map 10) while education and food are more commonly reported in the centre. Food is the main concern in areas which are highly populated, suggesting that lack of space may be a barrier to cultivating crops or raising livestock. While security is a concern throughout the camp, it is most consistently a concern in the southwestern and northern edges of the camp, which are closest to host communities. Education is a large concern south of the market and in the centre of the camp, where there are few schools. 32 Security is defined as both personal security (free form harm) and the integrity of property (damaged tent/stolen livestock or possessions). It is not specified whether the security concerns are form inside or outside the camp. 33

35 CONCLUSION The conflict in Blue Nile state has left millions of Sudanese displaced or forced to flee the country. Many of them fled across the border, into Upper Nile State in South Sudan. As a result, four refugee camps were set up in Maban county; Doro, Gendrassa, Kaya and Yusuf Batil. Yusuf Batil being the second largest refugee camp after Doro, hosting 40,648 individuals. This assessment was undertaken to address a lack of information about refugees needs across multiple sectors of humanitarian response. This is especially important in the context of a care and maintenance phase where targeted assistance replaces blanket distributions. Overall, findings show that the provision of certain basic services in Yusuf Batil camp could be improved, with refugees reporting issues across several sectors. Significant geographical disparity was also observed in access to services throughout the camp. The maps included within this report should be used by actors within the camp to address these priority areas for intervention. In terms of WASH, water is sometimes difficult to access due to significant waiting times at water points and the closure of valves during the day. The need for new latrines was also mentioned in FGDs, while open defecation was found to be common practice in parts of the camp. A high proportion of refugee shelters were judged to be in poor condition, while protection concerns and a lack of access to quality materials were reportedly hindering repair and improvement. Despite the problems identified above, refugees primary reported concern is a lack of security within the camp. Refugees in Yusuf Batil do not feel safe and security related incidents are common place, among them is the deliberate damage or destruction of shelters, and robbery. Discussions with refugees showed that tensions with host communities are widespread, and a commonly reported cause of concern. While refugees trust their sheiks to resolve security incidents within the camp, more serious incidents that involve the host community are referred to the local police, who refugees perceive to favour the host community. These findings point towards the need for humanitarian aid agencies to work on social cohesion programs as well as with the traditional judicial system. Peace building and conflict mitigation programmes to promote peaceful coexistence between host and refugees must be continued and increased, especially in the context of recent security incidents between the two communities. 33 Concerning the traditional judicial system, aid actors should word to increase the capacity of the police, courts and the prosecutor s office in Maban and improve knowledge and application of the rule of law and human rights. Work on this has already been started by DRC protection teams, with the hope of positive results in the near future. While both of these programs are important to mitigate dissent between the two communities, the livelihoods crisis is at the core of host-refugee tensions. 34 Although many refugees cultivate some crops, these are mainly for household consumption. Livestock herding is less common, and the products also primarily used for household consumption. At this point in time, agricultural activities are undertaken by refugees to achieve self-sufficiency rather than to create income. Therefore, the creation of income-generating activities, additional vocational training opportunities and village saving schemes could be used to build skills within the refugee community and stimulate the creation of new businesses, in turn, helping to mitigate the lack of available food, the second most commonly reported concern according to households in the camp. Addressing the lack of livelihood opportunities and competition over resources is vital to prevent tensions from rising, and to ensure that the livelihoods needs of both host communities and refugees are addressed. 35 This is particularly important as the refugee situation in Maban becomes increasingly protracted, with no end to the conflict in sight. 33 In October 2015, several refugees and host communities were killed due to rising tensions. 34 Displacement, Disharmony and Disillusion. Understanding Host-Refugee Tensions in Maban County, South Sudan. Danish Demining Group. 35 Displacement, Disharmony and Disillusion. Understanding Host-Refugee Tensions in Maban County, South Sudan. Danish Demining Group. 34

36 ANNEXES Annex 1: Maps Map 10: Reported priority needs in Yusuf Batil Camp 35

37 Map 11: Household shelter type 36

38 Map 12: Observed shelter quality 37

39 Map 13: Reported preferred water point 38

40 Map 14: Reported waiting times for water 39

41 Map 15: Reported source of health assistance used 40

42 Map 16: Reported reasons for not attending school 41

43 Map 17: Reported satisfaction with community policing 42