south sudan - upper nile state south sudan displacement ... · ulang maiwut luakpiny/nasir...

County Assessed settlements OCHA (COD) settlements Cover percentageBaliet 2 127 2%

Fashoda 9 198 4%

Longochuk 1 101 1%

Luakpiny/Nasir 17 151 11%

Maban 0 117 0%

Maiwut 1 82 1%

Malakal 6 114 5%

Manyo 3 75 4%

Melut 4 216 2%

Panyikang 6 93 6%

Renk 0 278 0%

Ulang 22 131 16%

Total 71 1,683 4%

ULANG MAIWUT

LUAKPINY/NASIR

LONGOCHUK

PANYIKANGMALAKAL

BALIET

FASHODA MABAN

MELUT

MANYO

RENK

SUDAN

Assessed settlements

0%

Settlement

0.1 - 4.9%1

10.1 - 20%

20.1 - 50%

> 50%

Cover percentage of assessed settlements relative to the OCHA (COD) total dataset:

5 - 10%

1 Data from counties with under 5% settlement coverage are not included in county level analysis, but are included in state-level analysis.

Assessment coverage

Contact with Area of Knowledge

KIs reported having visited AoK within last month.

KIs reported being newly arrived IDPs.

51%

62%

Key Informants interviewed147Settlements assessed 71

KIs reported being in contact with someone living in AoK within last month.

49%

In 2014 and 2015, Upper Nile State was the site of some of the most intense conflict in South Sudan. Although the state had enjoyed a period of relative calm in 2016, since January 2017, conflict has reignited across the state. Many areas in Upper Nile are largely inaccessible to humanitarian actors due to insecurity and logistical constraints. As a result, only limited information is available on the humanitarian situation outside major displacement sites. In order to fill such information gaps and facilitate humanitarian planning, in late 2015, REACH piloted its Area of Origin (AoO) methodology, which takes a territory-based approach that may cover several bomas, to collect

data in hard-to-reach areas of Unity State.In December 2016, REACH decided to refine the methodology, moving from the AoO to the Area of Knowledge (AoK) methodology, an approach collecting information at the settlement level. The most recent OCHA Common Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. Through AoK, REACH collects data from a network of Key Informants (KIs) who have sector-specific knowledge and gain information from regular direct or indirect contact, or recent displacement. Using this new methodology, in February 2017, REACH has collected information on Upper Nile through KIs in

Juba PoC site 1 and PoC site 3, as well as recently arrived IDPs in Akobo. Data collection was expanded to Renk in Upper Nile State in April 2017.Data collected is aggregated to the settlement level and all percentiles presented in this factsheet, unless otherwise specified, represent percent of settlements within Upper Nile with that specific response. The displacement section on page 2 refers to the proportion of assessed KIs arrived within the previous month (newly arrived IDPs).Although current AoK coverage is still limited and its findings not statistically significant, it provides an indicative understanding of the needs and current humanitarian situation in assessed areas of Upper Nile State.

Overview

Reached settlements

Assessment coverage

South Sudan - Upper Nile StateAssessment of Hard-to-Reach Areas in South Sudan

South Sudan Displacement Crisis

October 2017

1

51+29+10+4+4+236+28+21+9+7+2

More men than women 51%More women than men 29%About equal 10%All/almost all women 4%No answer 4%All/almost all men 2%

More adults than children 36%All/almost all adults 26%More children than adults 21%About equal 9%All/almost all elderly 7%No answer 2%

32+28+24+12+433+29+21+8+4+4

About equal 33%More women than men 29%No answer 21%More men than women 8%All/almost all men 4%All/almost all women 4%

More adults than children 32%More children than adults 28%All/almost all adults 24%About equal 12%No answer 4%

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ULANG

MAIWUTLUAKPINY/NASIR

LONGOCHUK

PANYIKANG

MALAKAL

BALIET

FASHODA MABAN

MELUT

MANYO

RENK

0 - 25%26 - 50%51 - 75%76 - 100%

Insufficient data

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ULANG


LONGOCHUK

PANYIKANG

MALAKAL

BALIET

FASHODA MABAN

MELUT

MANYO

RENK

Percent of settlements reporting local community remaining:

0 - 25%26 - 50%51 - 75%76 - 100%

Insufficient data

Percent of settlements reporting presence of IDPs: Reported gender ratio of local community

remaining in assessed settlements:

Reported age ratio of local community remaining in assessed settlements:

Reported gender ratio of IDPs in assessed settlements:

Reported age ratio of IDPs in assessed settlements:

Primary reported reason newly arrived IDPs left their previous location:

Primary reported reason newly arrived IDPs came to their current location:

Most recent previous locations reported by newly arrived IDPs:

Departure from most recent previous location by newly arrived IDPs:

Demographic compositionDemographic composition

Push factors Pull factors Previous location Displacement

43% October 201745% September 20177% August 20175% July 2017 or before

43+45+7+5+A1 Access to health services 29%

2 Security 25%

3 Access to food 12%

1 Ulang County 33%

2 Luakpiny/Nasir 30%

3 Fashoda County 13%

1 Lack of health services 34%

2 Lack of security 22%

3 Lack of food 12%

Local community Displacement

New arrivals



October 2017

2

1 Facilities were never available 34%

2 No drugs available 18%

3 No health care workers in area 14%

88+12+0+A

Under 30 minutes 31%30 minutes to under 1 hour 54%1 hour to under half a day 15%

31+54+1531+17+7+7+6

3418

1 Malaria 31%

2 Malnutrition 17%

3 Typhoid 7%

4 Tuberculosis 7%

5 diarrhoea 6%

88% Not available12% Available14

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ULANG


LONGOCHUK

PANYIKANG

MALAKAL

BALIET

FASHODA MABAN

MELUT

MANYO

RENK

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ULANG


LONGOCHUK

PANYIKANG

MALAKAL

BALIET

FASHODA MABAN

MELUT

MANYO

RENK

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ULANG


LONGOCHUK

PANYIKANG

MALAKAL

BALIET

FASHODA MABAN

MELUT

MANYO

RENK

0 - 25%26 - 50%51 - 75%76 - 100%

Insufficient data

Percent of settlements reporting access to health care:

0 - 25%26 - 50%51 - 75%76 - 100%

Insufficient data

Percent of settlements reporting tukuls as a primary shelter type for local community:

0 - 25%26 - 50%51 - 75%76 - 100%

Insufficient data

Percent of settlements reporting tukuls as a primary shelter type for IDPs:

Primary reported heath concern in assessed settlements:

Reported availability of feeding programmes that provide Plumpy Sup, CSB++ or other nutrition supplements in assessed settlements:

Reported distance of nearest healthcare facilities from assessed settlements:

Primary reported reason why healthcare facilities are not available from assessed settlements:

Health concerns

Feeding programmes

Healthcare distance

Healthcare unavailability

82+18+0+A 82% No18% Yes

52+17+13+4+41 Mosquito net 52%

2 Cooking pot 17%

3 Plastic sheet 13%

4 Blanket 4%

5 Bucket 4%

Primary reported non-food item needed to meet needs of IDPs in assessed settlements with IDPs present:

Reported destruction or partial destruction of shelters by violence in assessed settlements:

NFI Needs Shelter damage

Health Shelter/NFI



October 2017

3

0+0+4+15+79+2

All 0%More than half 0%Half 4%Less than half 15%None 79%No answer 2%


Half a day 3%More than half a day 2%


32+45+18+3+2

18+64+18 19%

Available

81% Not available62+38+A 81+19+0+A

1 Crops destroyed by flooding 34%

2 Crops destroyed by pests 24%

3 Unsafe to plant 14%

3424143.2 coping strategies

reported on average

38+25+13+11+10+2

Borehole 38%

Swamp 25%Donkey cart 13%Water yard 11%Pond 10%Water truck 2%

Reported primary water source available from assessed settlements:3

Water sources

Reported availability of a functional borehole from assessed settlements:

Water availability

37% Available

63% Not available63+37+A

38% Not available

62% Available

3 Safe or unsafe water source

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ULANG


LONGOCHUK

PANYIKANG

MALAKAL

BALIET

FASHODA MABAN

MELUT

MANYO

RENK

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ULANG


LONGOCHUK

PANYIKANG

MALAKAL

BALIET

FASHODA MABAN

MELUT

MANYO

RENK

0 - 25%26 - 50%51 - 75%76 - 100%

Insufficient data

Percent of settlements reporting adequate access to food:

0 - 25%26 - 50%51 - 75%76 - 100%

Insufficient data

Percent of settlements reporting presence of a functional borehole:

Reported use of sanitation facilities over open defecation in assessed settlements:

Reported distance of nearest water source from assessed settlements:3

Reported availability of a functioning market accessible from assessed settlements:

Primary reason settlements reported an inability to adequately access food:

Reported distance of nearest market from assessed settlements:

Reported availability of land for agriculture in assessed settlements:

Average number of reported coping strategies used in assessed settlements:

SanitationMarket availabilityLand availabilityCoping strategies

Food unavailability

Water distanceMarket distance

Food Security WASH



October 2017

4

About REACHREACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance 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: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected] www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

None 87%Pre-primary 4%Primary 13%Secondary 3%ALP3 1%

87+4+13+3+11 Need to work outside

home 78%

2 Fees are too high 11%

78110% None 0%

0% Less than half 0%

25% Half 75%

75% More than half 13%

0% All 0%

1 Girls are not supposed to attend school 29%

2 Fees are too high 29%

29291 No available facilities 49%

2 Facilities destroyed by violence 23%

4923Reported proportion of settlements where 6-17 years old boys and girls attend school:

Reported available education services in assessed settlements:

Primary reported reason why boys are not attending school in assessed settlements:

Primary reported reason why girls are not attending school in assessed settlements:

Education availability

School attendance

Education attendance and availability

Primary reported reason why education services are not available in assessed settlements:

Very Good 0%Good 64%Neutral 20%Poor 0%Very poor 16%

77+23+0+A

1 Sexual violence 33%

2 Domestic violence 13%

3 Killing/injury by other community 12%

4 Family separation 5%

5 Harassment to disclose information 3%


2 Cattle raiding 23%

3 Looting 8%

4 Killing/injury by same community 5%

5 Forced recruitment 3%

1 Early marriage 19%



4 Domestic violence 7%


77% No23% Yes

Primary reported protection concern in assessed settlements:



Reported relationships between IDPs, returnees4 and local community in assessed settlements:

Reported presence of disputes over land ownership in assessed settlements:

Women Men

Girls

Community relations

Land disputes

1 Forced recruitment 18%


3 Abduction 9%




Boys

4 Local community displaced and returned home, reported in 28% of assessed settlements

3 Accelerated learning programmes.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ULANG


LONGOCHUK

PANYIKANG

MALAKAL

BALIET

FASHODA MABAN

MELUT

MANYO

RENK

0 - 25%26 - 50%51 - 75%76 - 100%

Insufficient data

Percent of settlements reporting access to education:

Education Protection



October 2017

5

south sudan - upper nile state south sudan displacement ... · ulang maiwut luakpiny/nasir...

Documents