Monitorg Monitorg Hard Hard to to Reach Reach Areas Areas Displacement Displacement Crisis Crisis February February 2016 2016 Overview Conflict Unity state first broke out late December 2013, only days after fightg began Juba. Sce then, the state has been one of the worst affected by the conflict, and currently hosts the highest reported numbers of ternally displaced persons the country. Many areas Unity are largely accessible to humanitarian actors due to security and logistical constrats. As a result only limited formation is available on the humanitarian situation outside major displacement sites. In order to fill such formation gaps and facilitate humanitarian planng, late 2015 REACH firstly piloted its Area of Orig (AoO) approach to collect data hard-to-reach areas of Unity state. Through AoO, REACH collects data from a network of Key Informants (KIs) who routely travel and out of an area of terest; have sector-specific knowledge and direct and contuous contact with populations with an area of terest; or dividuals who have recently come from locations with the areas of terest. Although current AoO coverage is still limited and its fdgs not statistically significant, they provide a good dication of the needs and current humanitarian situation assessed areas of Unity state. Fdgs presented this document are drawn from primary data collected from key formants coverg 62 communities across 7 of Unity s 9 counties. Data was collected from 150 KIs currently Bentiu POC and reportg on areas they know well and from where they origate. The study focuses on the situation villages or local communities from which many dividuals have already fled, but where some families still rema. No formation has been collected for any PoC. Note that when reportg on a change access to services this refers to the proportion of KIs respondg yes with regards to a decrease access sce December 2013. Abyei region Twic Gogrial East Tonj Tonj North Tonj East Cueibet Rumbek North Rumbek Centre Panyikang Fangak Ayod Duk Twic East Yirol East assessed areas Demographics Population Primary demographic composition of remag local community (LC) population Primary demographic composition of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) population Estimated population of IDPs and proportion of remag local community population Reported reason for comg to location, by IDPs* 1 2 3 Relative married the local community Access to Food Security 83% 21% Reported reason for not leavg location, by local community Reported # of IDPs 1 2 3 Home Other Security 79% 19% 10 100 1000 Demographic composition mostly men mostly women % of LC remag 0-30 30-60 60-100
Population Communities reportg returnees Health*** Reported decrease access to healthcare Reported reasons why health services are not available* Security 75% No medice 7 Conflict related damage No available health workers 61% 58% Services were never there Natural disaster related damage 34% 16%75+70+61+58+34+16 Number of returnees per community 10 100 1000 assessed areas Livg situation and short-term displacement** Reported livg locations of IDPs* Reported livg locations for local communities and short-term displacement* With the local community 89% With relatives 41% In the bush 14% In a POC In a spontaneous settlement At home 63% Bush, far from home 63% At home, another village 59% In the bush, near home 47% In another settlement 43% Health concerns Top three reported health concerns 1 Diarrhea 37 % 2 Malaria 26 % 3 Malnutrition 21 % 85+50+42 Reported need of primary items healthcare centres 1 Drugs (not specified) 5 2 Malaria Treatment 25% 3 Nutrition Supplement 25% 50+25+25 ** The current location of LCs was asked for order to assess persons who were displaced with their local community ***Note that formation was only provided by health specialists
Shelter/NFI WASH Reported decrease access to shelter Primary reported shelter type* LC IDP Returnees Reported decrease access to drkg water Reported primary sources of those with safe drkg water Other 39% Rakooba/Tukul 89% 85% 87% Tent 22% 59% 22% Improvised 9% 23% 4% Abandoned 3% Community 2 15% None 21% 13% 14% No answer Borehole 28% Protected well 22% Chlorated water 11% Donkey cart Water tank For those with water access, the reported waitg time and distance to water pot 39+28+22+11 44+15+11+30+A 44% 15 ms 15% 16-30 ms 11% 31-60 ms 3 1 hour + NFIs Average proportion of people with no mosquito net of local community 24% of returnees 21% of IDPs Of those with mosquito nets the average number of people sharg one mosquito net 7 local community 18+24+21 4 Returnees 3 IDPs Water availability and sanitation Top three reported reasons why safe water is unavailable 1 Water source destroyed 67% 2 Other 17% 3 Insecurity 16 % 67+17+16 Reported sanitation facilities 92+8+A 77% Bush/Field 23% Latres
Food Security Livelihoods Reported decrease access to food Top three reported reasons food is unavailable* Reported decrease lands for cultivation Reported decrease access to agricultural puts 1 Crops stolen 59 % 2 Crops destroyed 56% 3 Short growg season 56% Top five reported copg strategies used per week* Borrow money 97 % Gather wild food 97 % Eat less expensive food 100 %100+97+97+94+91 Borrow food 94 % Consume seeds 91 % Food consumption score (FCS)** Copg strategy dex (CSI)*** 12 out of 62 communities had poor FCSs 59 out of 62 communities had poor CSIs Reported current location of the communities assets**** Reported current location of the communities cattle* The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a measure of the frequency of consumption and the nutritional value of food consumed. In, FCS is categorised as the followg thresholds: poor (0-21); borderle (21.5-35); and acceptable (over 35). Food consumption score acceptable borderle poor The frequency and type of copg strategies can be combed a CSI. Low scores mean that few copg strategies are used, while higher scores denote higher levels of vulnerability. Copg strategy dex 1-10 10-20 > 20 Looked after by community 39% Other 22% Stolen / Looted 2 Looked after by immediate family 19% Don't know Stolen 10 Looked after by immediate family 43% Looked after by community 29% Killed 7% Don t know ** These are dicative FCS at community level which were calculated based on KIs responses regardg food consumption *** These are dicative CSIs at community level which were calculated based on KIs responses regardg copg strategies ****Assets cluded thgs such as cars, cookg tools, goats/sheep, computer, TVs, Radio
61+38+0+1 53+8+13+26+1 - Unity State Education Protection Reported decrease access to education services Overall reported level of available education assessed communities* None 83% 17+83+A Primary Secondary 1 Vocational 3% University Community Reported relationship between IDPs and local communities/ between IDPs 61% 38% 1% Between IDPs Between LCs/IDPs Very good Good Poor Not specified 78% 78+20+2 2 2% Reasons education services are not available* Gender Teachers displaced 81% Destroyed by conflict 73% Never teachers 42% Insecurity 42% Natural disaster 31% 81+73+42+42+31 Primary reported concerns for men and women 53% 8% 13% 26% 1% Attack from member of different community Attack, from member of same community Harassment, different community Harassment, same community Collectg water Collectg firewood Domestic violence 63+14+5+18 63% 14% 5% In the 10 out of 62 assessed communities where education is available it is provided by the followg* Government 8 INGO 4 Volunteerg 3 NNGO 2 80+40+20+20 About REACH Initiative REACH facilitates the development of formation tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidencebased decisions emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through ter-agency aid coordation mechanisms. For more formation, you can write to our -country office: south.sudan@reach-itiative.org or to our global office: geneva@reach-itiative.org. Visit www.reach-tiative.org and follow us @REACH_fo.