Situation Overview: Upper Nile State, South Sudan March 2017 Introduction Although there has been an overall reduction in the incidence of conflict in Upper Nile since the beginning of March, ongoing tensions in several parts of the state continued to drive displacement, both within the state and to neighbouring countries. Fighting around Wau Shilluk, Malakal County, in late January caused a wave of displacement north to Kodok and later to Aburoc in Fashoda County; humanitarian partners estimated that there were approximately 21,000 IDPs living in Aburoc 1 at the end of March 2017. An unknown number of IDPs are also suspected to have fled to the bush around Wau Shilluk, and further afield into Fashoda and Panyikang Counties. Elsewhere in the state, insecurity in Nasir has continued to cause displacement southwards into Ulang County. Conflict also continued to negatively impact humanitarian needs in the state, most notably access to food, and health and education services, a trend which is likely to continue should fighting escalate in the run up to the start of the rainy season. To inform the response of humanitarian actors working outside of formal settlement sites, REACH has been conducting an ongoing assessment of hard to reach areas in South Sudan since 2015, for which data on settlements across Greater Upper Nile, Greater Equatoria and Western Bahr el Ghazal region is collected on a monthly basis. Between 13 and 31 March 2017, REACH interviewed 172 Key Informants (KIs) from 80 settlements in nine of the 12 counties in Upper Nile State. One-fifth of the respondents interviewed had arrived in their displacement location in February or March, and therefore had up-to-date information about the village from which they had been displaced, in order to ensure an accurate understanding of current displacement and population dynamics. Other respondents had recent information about a certain village through contact with someone (usually a relative) that is currently living there. Findings have been triangulated using focus group discussions (FGDs), secondary data, and previous REACH assessments of hardto-reach areas of Upper Nile State. Although current Area of Knowledge (AoK) coverage is still limited, and the findings not statistically significant, the data presented here provides an indicative understanding of the needs and current humanitarian situation in assessed areas of Upper Nile State. This Situation Overview outlines displacement and access to basic services in Upper Nile throughout March 2017. In order to provide contextual background, the first section analyses displacement trends in Upper Nile State between January and March. The second section outlines the population dynamics in the assessed communities, as well as access to food and basic services for both IDP and Assessed settlements Settlement Cover percentage of assessed settlements relative to the OCHA (COD) total dataset: 0% 0.1-4.9% 1 5-10% 10.1-20% 20.1-50% > 50% Map 1: REACH assessment coverage of Upper Nile State, March 2017 non-displaced communities. Fashoda, Melut and Renk all had less than 5% settlement coverage and have therefore not been analysed at the county level. However, data from these counties has been included in state-level analysis. Population Movement and Displacement Although the situation in Upper Nile has remained relatively calm throughout March, ongoing insecurity in Nasir and Ulang Counties, and fears of an escalation of fighting in Malakal, Panyikang and Fashoda Counties have been one of the driving factors for displacement. Seventy-three percent of respondents cited insecurity as a primary push factor. Lack of adequate food was also frequently cited as a reason for displacement, mentioned by 63% of respondents, and appeared to be one of the driving factors for the increased numbers of IDPs leaving Malakal Protection of Civilians (PoC) site throughout March. Displacement out of Malakal PoC Departures from Malakal PoC, first reported by REACH in February 2017 2, accelerated in March. The Danish Refugee Council (DRC) report that between 50-200 people have left the PoC on a daily basis since early March 3 ; according to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) verification during the March 2017 general food distribution (GFD), the overall camp population has reduced from 33,057 in December 2016 to 1. IOM Upper Nile Movement Trend Tracking Report. 2-8 April 2017. 2. REACH. Situation Overview: Displacement in Upper Nile. January-February 2017.
METHODOLOGY To provide an overview of the situation in largely inaccessible areas of Upper Nile State, REACH uses primary data provided by key informants who have recently arrived, or receive regular information, from their predisplacement location or Area of Knowledge. Information for this report was collected from key informants in the Malakal Protection of Civilians (PoC) site, Akobo in Jonglei State, and Juba PoC site throughout March 2017. The first phase of the assessment methodology comprised a participatory mapping exercise to map the relevant settlements in Upper Nile State. In-depth interviews were then conducted with selected participants using a standardised survey tool comprising questions on displacement trends, population needs, and access to basic services. After data collection was completed, all data was examined at the settlement level, and settlements were assigned the modal response. When no consensus could be found for a settlement, that settlement was not included in reporting. Descriptive statistics and geospatial analysis were then used to analyse the data. Please note that REACH is in the process of establishing sustained data collection in Upper Nile State. As a result, the current coverage is limited. The conclusions drawn are therefore indicative of likely trends in the state. 30,995 in March 2017. Several interlinked reasons have been reported for this increase in movement. Insecurity and fear of attack were commonly mentioned as the reason for leaving the PoC. Fighting in Wau Shilluk, an informal IDP settlement, in January and February 2017 and ongoing clashes to the north and south of Malakal have encouraged the belief that the PoC is vulnerable to attack, particularly as Wau Shilluk was viewed by respondents as an IDP camp similar to the PoC. Respondents further reported that trust in The United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) had been reduced following an attack on the PoC in February 2016, when a large proportion of the camp was burned down. UNMISS was perceived not to have provided adequate protection during this incident, and the subsequent restructuring of the camp and base, which saw all but one of the gates to the camp being blocked off for security reasons, has resulted in a loss of confidence in UNMISS protection. Reflecting state-wide trends, respondents also reported lack of food as a key push factor for leaving Malakal PoC. The destruction of Wau Shilluk market in January 2017 resulted in market prices in Malakal Town and PoC rising drastically. Additionally, the mass displacement of the Wau Shilluk population removed important co-dependent family networks between residents in the PoC and those living in Wau Shilluk, including sharing food for consumption and to sell in the Jonglei Sudan Wau Shilluk Malakal PoC Lul Aburoc Kodok Jonglei Melut Map 2: Displacement patterns in Upper Nile, January-March 2017 Paloich Nasir Renk Wanding Jikmir Displacement out of Malakal January - March 2017 Displacement towards Akobo January - March 2017 Displacement from Wau Shilluk January - March 2017 Government - facilitated movement from Juba July - March 2017 Ethiopia 3. DRC movement tracking data. March 2017. 2
PoC market. Furthermore, there was a parallel reduction of food aid in the course of March, due to logistical challenges, which resulted in the camp population receiving half rations for February and March. Combined, these factors have created a situation of widespread food insecurity in which families reported regularly skipping meals, reducing portion sizes and selling their remaining possessions in order to buy food. However, despite the recent numbers of people leaving the camp, the vast majority of the population (approximately 30,000) continue to live in the PoC, both to seek shelter from ongoing fighting and to access basic services. Prior to the fighting in late January, the majority of people leaving Malakal PoC were crossing the river to Wau Shilluk and travelling up to Renk or Sudan along the western bank on foot. However, it is no longer considered safe to use this route, and IDPs are limited to taking the road north on the eastern bank of the Nile. Respondents reported that vehicles provided by the government are the primary means available to travel to Paloich and cost approximately 1,700 South Sudanese Pounds (SSP) per person 4 ; very small numbers are able to travel in commercial trucks which are cheaper (approximately 1,000SSP for a family) 5. Once in Paloich, Melut County, the IDPs are then able to take public transport to Renk or straight across the Sudan border. Respondents reported that the cost of taking both the government and commercial vehicles to Paloich is increasing almost daily, meaning that only those who can afford to pay are able to leave the camp. The safety of the route north raises protection concerns, particularly as the vast majority of IDPs leaving the camp are women and young children, and several respondents requested assistance from the humanitarian community to facilitate safe passage to Sudan. Displacement from Wau Shilluk to Kodok and Aburoc Fighting broke out around the IDP settlement of Wau Shilluk in late January 2017, triggering a wave of displacement northwards. IDPs fled on foot along the western bank of the Nile towards the town of Kodok, Fashoda County. Whilst some remained in Kodok, a high number (approximately 21,000) of IDPs travelled to a new informal settlement in Aburoc. Displacement from South Eastern Upper Nile to Akobo In early January 2017, fighting spread to the bomas southeast of Nasir Town for the first time since the December 2013 crisis. This has resulted in a new wave of displacement of approximately 37,000 IDPs 6 to Jikmir in Nasir County and Wanding in Ulang County. Although IDPs in both locations had previously expressed a desire to remain where they were, a growing number of people are moving southwards towards Akobo, reporting ongoing insecurity as the primary driving factor for displacement. FGDs conducted with new arrivals in Akobo indicated that Wanding was increasingly perceived as being vulnerable to attack 7. This suggests that the conflict has continued to spread outwards from the epicentre of Nasir Town over the last month. Additionally, 63% of respondents arriving into Akobo from locations in Upper Nile reported lack of food as a push factor. The large number of IDPs arriving into Wanding and Jikmir since January has put considerable pressure on the resources of the local community, which had been reporting food scarcity even prior to this recent influx 8. IDPs travelling to Upper Nile Since July 2016, a number of civilians have also begun arriving in Malakal. As part of this government-facilitated movement, approximately 5,500 people have arrived in Malakal Town over the last few months 9. Respondents indicated that they had been living in various locations in and around Malakal Town prior to the 2013 crisis, and were intending to remain in the town, or return to their anscestral land in Baliet or Akoka. The majority had reportedly travelled from Yei or the refugee settlements in Uganda, and had travelled to Juba on government-sponsored Bongo Buses 10 before waiting at an informal settlement outside Juba Airport for a cargo plane to transport them to Malakal. Situation in Assessed Communities Demographic profile Remaining population in assessed villages Insecurity over time has affected the demographic composition of settlements; although overall 92% of assessed settlements Map 3: Proportion of settlements reporting presence of local community, March 2017 reported the presence of local community members, the numbers vary substantially between counties. For example, only 17% of settlements in Malakal County reported the presence of local community members, whereas local community members were indicated as present in all settlements in Ulang and Longochuck. This could be reflective of the length of time that settlements have experienced insecurity for. For example, Malakal has been one of the most conflictaffected areas of Upper Nile since fighting first broke out in December 2013. Both the intensity 4. As reported by multiple respondents in Malakal PoC, March 2017. 5. Ibid. 6. Nile Hope. Rapid Needs Assessment Report on Displacement from Nasir. January 2017. 7. For more information see REACH SSD. Situation Overview: Jonglei March 2017. [Not yet published) 8. See REACH SSD. Situation Overview: Wanding Displacement Januray 2017. [Not yet published] 3
and the length of the insecurity have likely resulted in the majority of the local community fleeing the area. Conversely, in areas such as Ulang and Longochuk, which have experienced shorter periods of fighting, a higher proportion of the local community still remain. Of the assessed settlements with local community remaining, the majority (79%) are reportedly still living in their own homes, suggesting good security conditions in these areas. Insecurity has also impacted the gender balance of settlements with settlements in more conflict-affected counties tending to report a higher proportion of men than women. Fifty percent of assessed settlements in Panyikang, 29% in Ulang and 20% Nasir reported that there were more men than women. This is likely reflective of ongoing fighting in some parts of these counties, resulting in women and children fleeing to safer areas. IDP population in assessed villages The majority of assessed settlements reported that there were no IDPs living there. The presence of IDPs was reported by approximately a third of settlements in Nasir (35%) and Fashoda (33%), and a smaller proportion of settlements in Ulang (13%) and Longochuck (7%). While these relatively low numbers may be indicative of increased crossborder displacement, as identified earlier, the limited number of settlements captured by AoK data in March may also reduce the accuracy of these findings. Map 4: Proportion of settlements reporting adequate access to food, March 2017 Food security Only 56% of all assessed settlements reported that they had adequate access to food in March, with the lowest proportion of settlements reporting adequate accesss to food in Panyikang (0%) and Malakal (50%), as indicated in Map 4. The data further indicated a link between the severity of food insecurity and the presence of conflict, as indicated by deaths attributed to hunger. Seventy-five percent of settlements in Malakal reported hunger and/or malnutrition as a cause of death in March 2017 and 58% of settlements in Nasir reported the Reduce portion sizes Adults skip meals so children can eat Buy less expensive, lower quality food Gather wild food Reduce number of meals Figure 1: Top five reported food security coping mechanisms 11, by proportion of settlements, March 2017 same, whilst in less conflict-affected counties, such as Longochuk, the proportion was lower (26% of settlements). In total, death attributed to hunger or malnutrition was reported by 44% of assessed settlements. In another indication of the negative link between conflict and food insecurity, two of the three most commonly reported reasons for lack of food were conflict-related; 53% of settlements reported that crops were destroyed by fighting, and 44% said that it was too unsafe to cultivate altogether. This is consistent with findings from FGDs conducted in Malakal in March which identified rising food insecurity as a result of fighting on the western bank of the Nile. Respondents stated that the destruction of the market in Wau Shilluk in January 2017 has both reduced the supply of food, and 53% 58% 63% 63% 71% substantially raised prices in Malakal Town and PoC. Conflict in the surrounding area has also prevented cultivation, further reducing food supply in both Malakal and Panyikang counties. However, the most commonly reported reason for inadequate food was food distributions having been stopped; reported by 55% of assessed settlements across five counties 12. This may be reflective of one-off food distributions in some parts of the state, for example Jikmir, which have been perceived as distributions being stopped. Additionally, as previously mentioned, whilst GFDs have not been stopped in Malakal Town and PoC, food insecurity has reportedly been compounded by the reduction of rations in February and March. Overall, 27% of assessed settlements said that their primary source of food was from 9. As reported by Malakal Relief and Rehabilitation Committee (RRC), March 2017. 10. For further details on the route returnees are taking between Uganda and Juba see REACH SSD. Situation Overview: Nimule displacement. February 2017. [Not yet published] 11. Respondents could select more than one response. 12. Fashoda, Melut and Renk all had less than 5% settlement coverage and have therefore not been analysed at the county level. However data from these counties has been included in state-level analysis. 4
humanitarian agencies. This was the second most commonly reported source of food after cultivation (45%) and indicates heavy reliance on humanitarian support in some parts of the state. IDPs who have recently travelled to Malakal Town from Yei and Uganda (via Juba) are not currently receiving food assisstance, although they are able to access NGO nutrition programmes and healthcare facilities. FGD respondents in Malakal Town indicated high levels of food insecurity and heavy reliance on coping strategies related to reduced consumption. Having been prohibited from taking any luggage with them on the flight from Juba, IDPs also reported a lack of access to productive assets, such as fishing and agricultural tools. As a result, IDPs were primarily accessing food from their relatives living in Malakal Town. IDPs reported that they hoped to begin cultivating once the rainy season begins, but expressed concerns over their lack of seeds and tools, as well as ongoing insecurity around Malakal Town which reduces safe access to land. Just under half (48%) of all assessed settlements reported regularly employing an average of two to three coping strategies. That households are using multiple coping strategies simultaneously suggests moderate-to-severe food insecurity in these locations. As illustrated by Figure 1, of the most commonly reported strategies, three in particular were indicative of a crisis situation: limiting portion sizes at mealtimes (reported by Killing or injury by other tribe Cattle raiding Forced recruitment Figure 2: Top three reported protection concerns for men by proportion of settlements, March 2017 71% of settlements), adults skipping meals so that children can eat (63%), and reducing the number of meals per day (53%). In a further indication of the severity of food insecurity, 27% of assessed settlements reported eating just once a day, whilst only 7% reported eating three meals a day. Although these strategies are broadly indicative of moderate food insecurity, as opposed to coping mechanisms which indicate more severe levels of food insecurity such as selling productive assets, their high prevalence and frequency of use suggests that food insecurity is widespread across Upper Nile. With the rainy season still at least one month away, it is highly likely that the situation will deteriorate further, potentially resulting in an increase in the number and severity of coping mechanisms employed by households. Livelihoods Although 81% of assessed settlements reported having access to land, data on food security, outlined in the previous section, and current 16% 28% 33% livelihood activities suggests that ongoing insecurity has prevented widespread cultivation, despite a high number of households having land physically available to them. For example, just half (49%) of assessed settlements reported subsistance farming as a livelihood opportunity, and a lower proportion of settlements reported relying on agriculture as a source of livelihood in areas heavily affected by conflict. Only 17% of settlements in Malakal and 20% in Panyikang indicated the presence of subsistance farming, and no settlements in Malakal indicated growing crops for sale. In another indication of the limited ability to cultivate in Upper Nile, only 44% of assessed settlements reported having access to agricultural tools. Again, the lack of access to agricultural inputs appears to be related to conflict; 25% of settlements reported that tools had been looted, and a further 14% indicated that the tools had been abandoned when the original owners had fled. Over half (54%) of assessed settlements reported no access to a functioning market. A lack of access to markets mean that, in the absence of local crop cultivation outlined above, households will be increasingly dependent on food assistance. At 80%, Panyikang County had the highest proportion of settlements reporting no functioning market. This is particularly worrying given that settlements in Panyikang also reported some of the lowest levels of agricultural activity. The lack of food sources suggests that this one of the counties worst-affected by food insecurity in the state. Protection In what is likely indicative of the ongoing insecurity in Upper Nile, conflict was the most common cause of death, reported by 87% of settlements. Nasir (53%) and Ulang (43%) had the highest proportion of settlements reporting conflict as the primary cause of death, again reflecting ongoing conflict in these counties. Similarly, killing or injury by another community was the top protection concern for men, reported by a third (33%) of all assessed settlements. In another indication of insecurity, forced recruitment was also identified by 16% of settlements, and FGD respondents in Malakal PoC reported rumours of forced recruitment in Kodok, Fashoda County, and Tonga, Panyikang County. The focus on forced recruitment potentially signals that the ongoing violence in Upper Nile State is rapidly deterioriating the protection environment for the local population. 5
Whilst not directly related to the political conflict in South Sudan, 28% of assessed settlements also identified cattle raiding as a key protection concern for men in the community. Shelter The low proportion of settlements reporting IDPs staying in tukuls indicates the high prevalence of a recently displaced population. Although 58% of assessed settlements reported that the primary shelter type for local community members was tukuls, Map 5: Proportion of settlements reporting tukuls as IDP primary shelter type, March 2017 only 11% reported that IDPs were living in tukuls. Seventy-eight percent of assessed settlements indicated that the primary shelter type for IDPs was rakoobas, whilst a further 16% reported that IDPs were also living in tents and community buildings (9%). The heavy reliance on temporary shelters is a strong indication that people have been recently displaced, and reflects the fluid nature of movement patterns in Upper Nile in March. Consequently, provision of shelter kits should be considered in these communities in the coming weeks as South Sudan approaches the rainy season, which can start as early as late-april in some parts of Upper Nile State. In a reflection of ongoing insecurity in Upper Nile, two thirds of assessed settlements reported that shelters had been destroyed in the last month, with notably high figures in Panyikang (100%) and Malakal (83%), which has experienced some of the most intense fighting throughout February and March 2017. Health Healthcare facilities were reportedly accessible in 61% of assessed settlements. In settlements where healthcare was not accessible, this was often due to conflict; 42% reported that insecurity was preventing them from accessing existing facilities, and 37% said that the facilities had been destroyed by fighting. As indicated in Map 6, it appears that access to health services is higher in counties that are relatively stable (such as Longochuk, 77%) and physically accessible for humanitarian Map 6: Proportion of settlements reporting access to healthcare, March 2017 actors (Malakal, 80%); and lower in counties which are conflict-affected (Panyikang, 0%) and difficult to access (Maiwut, 50%). In another indication of food insecurity, malnutrition was the most commonly identified health concern in the assessed settlements in Upper Nile, reported by 54%. This is a slight increase from February when malnutrition was reported as an issue by 50% of settlements. Additionally, two thirds (67%) of settlements assessed reported that feeding programmes which provide nutritional supplements were not available in their locality. More settlements reported a lack of nutrition programming in Malakal (80%) and Panyikang (60%), which is likely reflective of the ongoing instability on the western bank of the Nile. Insecurity throughout March has significantly reduced humanitarian access to settlements around Wau Shilluk and southwards into Panyikang County. Although cholera was only identified as a concern in 13% of settlements, there were several confirmed cases of cholera in Malakal Town in March 13. As the rainy season approaches, it is highly likely that cases of cholera will become more prevalent. Potentially vulnerable populations include the IDP settlement in Aburoc, which is located in swampland, as well as heavily congested areas, such as Malakal PoC. Water and Sanitation Ninety-one percent of assessed settlements reported having access to safe drinking water, with 83% citing a borehole as the main source of water. The majority of settlements (84%) further indicated that the nearest water source was less than an hour away. However, latrine usage is extremely low with only 4% of settlements reporting that at least half the population uses them, and over half (54%) of all assessed settlements reporting no latrine usage at all. The prevalence of open defecation, and the potential it has to contaminate drinking water sources, is particularly problematic given the outbreak of cholera in March, and is likely to contribute to a rise in the number of confirmed 13. KI with MSF staff, March 2017. 6
Map 7: Proportion of settlements reporting access to safe drinking water, March 2017 cases as the rainy season approaches. Education Just under half of all assessed settlements (49%) reported access to education services with the highest proportion reporting this in Malakal (60%), a figure likely reflective of the NGO-supported education services which are available in Malakal Town and PoC. The most commonly identified reasons for lack of functioning schools were conflictrelated; 31% of assessed settlements reported that teachers had fled existing facilities, and 20% reported that the facilities had been destroyed by fighting. As with the reasons for lack of functioning schools, insecurity was the most commonly reported primary reason for children not attending school, reported by 32% of assessed settlements. Should insecurity in Upper Nile continue it is likely that access to educational services will further decline. Conclusion Despite a period of relative calm throughout March, the situation in Upper Nile State remains highly volatile, and overall access to services remains low. Ongoing insecurity has resulted in a large, recently displaced population, often more than once since the beginning of the year. Although the majority of displaced populations have settled in informal sites, such as Aburoc, the unstable security situation continues to make long-term humanitarian planning a challenge. Against the backdrop of continued insecurity, food security is the priority humanitarian need in Upper Nile State. Forty-four percent of all settlements assessed in March reported not having adequate access to food. Instability in the state is compounding pre-existing food insecurity, with settlements reporting that conflict had destroyed crops and made it too unsafe to access land. Panyikang and Malakal were the two counties with the highest reported levels of food insecurity. Over half of settlements reporting food insecurity identified lack of food distributions as a primary reason for lack of food. This suggests that settlements in Upper Nile are increasingly reliant on humanitarian agencies as a source of food, further indicating a reduction in community ability to autonomously source food. In another indication of the increasing severity of food insecurity, the most commonly reported coping strategies related to reducing consumption, such as reducing portion sizes and reducing the number of meals consumed per day, suggesting that the capacity of communities to cope effectively with food insecurity has been severely eroded. This decline in community resilience is extremely concerning, particularly given that the first harvest of the rainy season will not start for another three to four months, meaning that communities will continue to be unable to provide for themselves until then. Alongside access to food, conflict continues to reduce access to basic services, most notably health and education facilities, with the lowest levels of access in more unstable counties, such as Panyikang, and areas with only a small humanitarian presence, such as Maiwut. The conflict-affected populations in Upper Nile State require a sustained, large-scale humanitarian effort to address their needs. However, this can only be possible if reliable, unrestricted access is assured to humanitarian actors in both the immediate and longer term. At the time of writing, humanitarian access outside of formal and informal displacement sites remained limited, and humanitarian actors have a narrow understanding of the needs of populations in more remote areas, such as Baliet and Longochuck. As REACH continues to expand data collection in the coming months, it is hoped that humanitarian actors will begin to build a more nuanced picture of the dynamics and population needs in these parts of Upper Nile State. About REACH Initiative REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: southsudan@ reach-initiative.org or to our global office: geneva@reach-initiative.org. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info. 7