DORO REFUGEE CAMP COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ......2 Doro Refugee Camp Needs Assessment – December 2015...

SOUTH SUDAN

ASSESSMENT REPORT

DECEMBER 2015

DORO REFUGEE CAMP

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1

Doro Refugee Camp Needs Assessment – December 2015

Cover photo: Women collecting firewood close to Doro camp, Maban ©UNHCR

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 evidence-based 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 inter-

agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information please visit our website: www.reach-initiative.org.

You can contact us directly at: [email protected] and follow us on Twitter @REACH_info.

http://www.reach-initiative.org/

mailto:[email protected]

2


SUMMARY

Doro is one of four refugee camps in Maban County in South Sudan’s Upper Nile State. The state houses an estimated 134,435 refugees1 who have fled primarily from Blue Nile State in neighbouring Sudan. 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 2011. Doro refugee camp was officially opened two months later in November 2011 and is the largest refugee camp in the county; the majority of its refugees are reported to originate from the Kurmuk area.2 According to figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 51,659 individuals (12,470 households) were residing in the camp as of 6 October 2015.

As the situation stabilizes from the emergency phase into the care and maintenance phase, information needs are changing: with a decrease in available funding and resources, targeted distributions are starting to replace blanket distributions, requiring more granular data to understand household level needs. In order to address these information gaps, UNHCR requested a detailed census of households within the camp, which was designed and implemented by REACH.

The study consisted of a comprehensive census-style assessment at household-level, complemented by interviews with camp management and NGO staff working in the camp. The assessment was undertaken in close cooperation with UNHCR; Doro’s camp management, the Danish Refugee Council (DRC); and community leaders (sheiks3 and umdas4). Primary data collection at household level took place between August and November 2015, followed by qualitative interviews with NGO staff, in order to provide further details and contextual information where needed. The findings of this assessment contain critical information for all aid agencies operating in the camp, and provide an evidence base to inform the timely provision of humanitarian assistance to meet identified needs.

Across the camp, access to services and assistance appears to vary considerably, with some areas performing consistently better than others. Hygiene promotion activities appear to have been particularly successful throughout the camp, with all assessed households reporting to wash their hands at least once a day, most commonly using ash to wash their hands, largely as a result of a campaign to promote self-sufficiency and reduce reliance on soap from aid distributions. However, sanitation represents a key area for improvement, with almost a third of households practising open defecation, most of these concentrated towards the edges of camp, particularly the villages of Samari 4, Jindi and Wadaga. This is of particular concern in Jindi and Wadaga, where annual floodwater was frequently reported to stay for up to several weeks, further exacerbating the risk of disease. Similarly, while waiting times for water collection fall within SPHERE minimum standards in much of the camp, these also represent a key area for improvement in several villages, particularly Kernkan and Wadaga in the west, and Benamayu and Samari 1 & 3 in the east.

Overall, the assessment found that refugees struggled to access many of their basic, immediate needs, particularly food. Despite the length of their displacement and the receipt of significant support from humanitarian actors, refugees in Doro were found to be struggling to maintain adequate levels of food consumption and turning to a variety of coping strategies to survive. The widespread use of coping mechanisms—in many cases unsustainable strategies such as the consumption of seeds intended for planting—is reducing households’ productive capacity in the future. With all available resources used to meet short term needs, households have very limited capacity save, repair or improve their shelters, or invest in their children’s education. As a result, households are becoming increasingly vulnerable and less able to cope with future shocks and stresses.

1 UNHCR SouthSudan Information Sharing Portal, updated on 6 October 2015. 2 Doro Camp Snapshot, November 2014, UNHCR. 3 Refugees within Doro continue to use their existing tribal authority structures, principally through sheiks who are community leaders. 4 Each sheikh represents a village, and each umda represents a community

http://data.unhcr.org/SouthSudan/region.php?id=25&country=251

http://data.unhcr.org/SouthSudan/download.php?id=1632

3


The provision of humanitarian assistance is vital to address short term needs, as well as to relieve underlying tensions related to conflict between refugees and the host community over land and natural resources. In the context of scarce land, limited access, and ongoing insecurity, the development of alternative livelihoods for refugees is key in order to ease pressure on resources. Further research should be conducted into the availability of livelihoods other than cultivation and herding, in order to understand what types of alternative livelihoods might be available, and how additional opportunities could be developed for the mutual benefit of the host community and refugees. In addition, open dialogue between refugee community leaders and the host community should be encouraged, in order both to ease existing tensions and reach agreement on the equitable use of land.

Key findings from assessment are summarized below and include the following:

Food Security and Livelihoods

Food was the most commonly reported priority need by refugees in Doro camp, reported by 41.8% of households. Refugees are highly reliant on humanitarian assistance, with the vast majority (93.9%) reporting assistance from the World Food Programme (WFP) as their primary food source. Food consumption is low, with many households failing to consume all key food groups in a given week. Over half of refugees were found to have poor or borderline food consumption scores: 18.1% with poor scores, 38.4% borderline, and 43.5% acceptable.

Refugees also reported a high use of coping strategies to maintain their food consumption, with over 70% using multiple coping strategies on several days a week.

The majority of households supplemented their WFP rations with food they produced themselves: 62.7% of households reporting planting crops, and 17% keeping animals. These households generally enjoyed higher levels of food consumption than other households, with a positive correlation observed between engagement in these livelihood types and acceptable food consumption scores.

Security and Protection

Security was the second most commonly reported concern, with over one third of households (36.1%) citing security as their top priority. More than one in four households (25.9%) reported involvement in a security incident since arrival in the camp. Reported security incidents commonly included harassment, physical attacks and robbery, followed by shelter damage. In the case of an incident, the vast majority of refugees report to sheiks, underlining the importance of their involvement in any programming related to dispute resolution. Relations with host community remain difficult, with households cultivating or herding on host community or communal land more likely to report conflict over land and resources.

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

Access to water was the third most commonly reported concern by refugees. 8.4% of refugees reported water as their top priority, while 51.8% reported this as their second or third priority need. The majority of households reported getting their water from tap stands (87.1%), or hand pumps (12.4%), most commonly making three trips a trips a day to fetch water. Waiting at the water point was common, with over half of households (57.7%) reporting to wait for more than 30 minutes on average, a waiting time that falls below the minimum SPHERE standards.

Almost a third of households (31%) reported open defecation, either in the bush, or in rivers, streams or hafirs5, increasing their risk of related health concerns and leaving them vulnerable to protection risks, such as harassment. The remaining refugees reported defecating in NGO-constructed, family or communal latrines.

5 Hafirs are underground reservoirs, traditionally used to store rainwater for both agricultural purposes and drinking.

4


All households in the camp reported hand washing at least once a day, with over 78% of heads of household reporting they washed their hands in the morning, before eating, before cooking and after defecating. The most commonly reported hand-washing method was using ash, used by 48.3%.

Education

One in ten households (9.8%) in Doro reported that school-age children were not attending school. When asked about reasons for non-attendance, households gave a variety of reasons, most commonly that schools were too far away (33%). However, spatial analysis reveals that only a small proportion (9%) are actually living more than 1km away from the nearest school, suggesting that distance is likely to be only one of several reasons for non-attendance. Other commonly reported reasons included that children were too old to attend school within the camp (19%), or that children were needed to work (18%), either at home, tending livestock or in the market.

Children working instead of attending school were more likely to come from smaller than average, single or widowed, female-headed households. Households with working children also recorded higher monthly spending on food, suggesting that child labour makes an important contribution to these households’ ability to make ends meet.

Shelter

Overall, the majority of shelters (68.8%) were judged to be in good or fair condition, although more than one in five shelters (28.9%) was judged to be in poor condition, and in need of replacement. The average number of shelters per household was 1.5, with shelters made of grass, wood and mud the most commonly observed shelter type (38.6%). Only 6.1% of shelters were tents, the majority of these from UNHCR.

Overall, 29.7% of households reported flooding in the past year, a much smaller proportion than in Yusuf Batil, where over half of all households (52%) reported flooding. When asked about the length of time that long standing or stagnant water had remained on their plot of land during the 2015 wet season, the majority of these households (87.2%) reported that flooding lasted less than one week.

5


CONTENTS

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 2

List of Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... 6

Geographical Classifications ................................................................................................................... 6

List of Figures, Tables and Maps ............................................................................................................ 7

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 8

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................10

FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................13

Population profile ...................................................................................................................................13

Food Security and Livelihoods ...............................................................................................................15

Security and protection ..........................................................................................................................21

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) ................................................................................................23

Education ...............................................................................................................................................27

Shelter ....................................................................................................................................................28

CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................................32

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................34

Annex 1: Maps .......................................................................................................................................34

Annex 2: Household Questionnaire........................................................................................................34

6


List of Acronyms

CGI Corrugated Galvanized Iron

DRC Danish Refugee Council

FGD Focus Group Discussion

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

7


List of Figures, Tables and Maps

Figure 1: Doro camp population pyramid, disaggregated by age and sex ............................................. 13

Figure 2: Disabilities reported by heads of household, by type .............................................................. 14

Figure 3: Primary concerns reported by refugee households ................................................................. 15

Figure 4: Reported monthly expenditure on food (SSP) ......................................................................... 16

Figure 5: Reported household consumption of key food groups in the 7 days prior to assessment ....... 17

Figure 6: Proportion of households by food consumption score (FCS) .................................................. 17

Figure 7: Proportion of households using coping strategies at least once a week, by strategy .............. 19

Figure 8: Types of crop cultivated by households (multiple selection was allowed) ............................... 20

Figure 9: Land used by refugee households for cultivation (multiple selection was allowed) ................. 20

Figure 10: Type of livestock herded ....................................................................................................... 21

Figure 11: Reported security incidents since arrival in the camp (multiple selection allowed) ................ 22

Figure 12: Reported first point of referral in the case of harassment ...................................................... 23

Figure 13: Average number of trips to fetch water per day, reported by households ............................. 24

Figure 14: Reported length of time spent waiting at water source .......................................................... 24

Figure 15: Reported location of defecation in Doro camp ...................................................................... 25

Figure 17: Reported hand-washing practices throughout the day .......................................................... 26

Figure 23: Reported reasons for children not attending school (multiple reasons allowed) .................... 27

Figure 18: Type of shelter present in Doro Camp .................................................................................. 29

Figure 19: Shelter quality, by shelter type (based on enumerator observation) ..................................... 29

Figure 20: Reported origin of shelter materials (multiple selection allowed)........................................... 30

Figure 21: Reported duration of seasonal flooding in the camp ............................................................. 30

Map 1: Doro Camp General Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 9

Map 2: Doro Camp Village Communities ............................................................................................... 11

Map 3: Population density in Doro Camp ............................................................................................... 14

Map 4: Reported waiting times in Doro camp......................................................................................... 25

Map 5: Location of households practising open defecation .................................................................... 26

Map 6: Households reporting that school is “too far”, and distance to schools in Doro camp ................ 28

Map 7: Reported duration of flooding in Doro camp ............................................................................... 31

Map 8: Distribution of households by food consumption score .............................................................. 34

Map 9: Reduced Coping Strategy Index scores in Doro camp ............................................................... 34

Map 10: Households reporting security incidents in Doro ...................................................................... 35

Map 11: Distance to water points in Doro .............................................................................................. 35

8


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 Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) in Sudan. Rising tensions initially led to violence in South Kordofan and had spread to Blue Nile State by September 2011. The resulting conflict caused the widespread displacement of people from Blue Nile state over the border into South Sudan.6 As of January 2015, an estimated 180,333 refugees had fled from Blue Nile State in Sudan to Upper Nile State in South Sudan.7 The majority of these refugees live in four refugee camps in Maban County: Doro (51,659), Yusuf Batil (40,648), Kaya (22,617), and Gendrassa (18,312).

Doro camp was opened in November 2011, shortly after the first major influx of refugees arrived in September 2011, and was shortly at almost full capacity. Doro remains the largest refugee camp in Maban County, home to 51,659 individuals or 12,470 households.

Four years since its establishment, UNHCR and NGOs present in Maban County report refugees in camps continue to suffer from difficult and often inadequate living conditions. 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 accurate knowledge 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 Doro, has left the humanitarian community largely unaware of the situation and needs of refugees.8 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, Doro’s camp management (Danish Refugee Council) and community leaders, with primary data collected between August and November 2015. 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:

Population profile

Food security and livelihoods

Security and protection

Water, sanitation and hygiene

Education

Shelter

Access to information

6 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 2013. 7 UNCHR, biometric records. 8 More studies have been conducted in Gendrassa and Kaya refugee camps, for example: REACH (2014) Gendrassa Camp Profile Report

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/ssd_gendrassa_refugeecampprofile_aug2014.pdf

9


Map 1: Doro Camp General Infrastructure

10


METHODOLOGY

The objective of this study was to gain a greater understanding of the living conditions of refugees within Doro camp. Specifically, the assessment sought to gather quantitative, sector-specific data to inform evidence-based decisions by humanitarian actors within the camp. These findings will also act as a baseline, against which the situation can be periodically monitored.

The methodology for the assessment was developed in partnership with UNHCR, and Doro’s camp management, DRC. Where possible, the methodology and questions were aligned with an earlier census-style assessment in Yusuf Batil camp, in order to provide comparable data and results. The assessment used a quantitative approach, with primary data collected through a comprehensive household survey of refugee households in the camp. Based on the experience in Yusuf Batil camp, the decision was taken to focus on fewer sectors in more detail, in response to priority identified needs by camp management and implementing partners. As a result, questions on health and wellbeing were removed from the survey, and instead greater focus was placed on food security, livelihoods and access to land. Following preliminary data analysis, a series of follow-up interviews with camp management and NGO partners in the camp were used to verify findings and provide further information about the ongoing response.

Timeline Preparations for the assessment began in August 2015, with consultation with sheikhs to secure community buy-in, and the recruitment and training of enumerators. Once selected, enumerators underwent a two day training in mid-August, including a full day of pilot data collection, in order to practise the questions and methodology. Primary data was collected from 20 August to 20 November, with data cleaning and preliminary analysis conducted in November and December 2015. Follow up interviews with NGO partners were conducted in December 2015.

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 card holders, then each one was asked to respond to the survey and was considered a household by itself.

The household survey included questions covering multiple sectors including demographics, shelter, WASH, education, livelihoods, food security and protection. The data was collected by enumerators using the Open Data Kit (ODK) and KoBo smartphone applications. Mobile data collection was used to improve the speed of the process, with the use of yes/no and multiple choice questions. Compulsory questions and constraints were also built into the survey form to reduce the likelihood of enumerator error. The use of smartphones also allowed data to be uploaded after each day of data collection, where it could be checked and cleaned and problems addressed immediately. GPS points were collected for every household interviewed so that spatial analysis of responses could highlight particular areas of concern within the camp.

Prior to data collection, 22 enumerators and 3 supervisors were trained for two days on the questionnaire and the use of the ODK smartphone application, which was used to facilitate data collection. The training included a full day of field training, during which the questionnaire was piloted. In order to ensure that both the camp population and nearby host community had the opportunity to be employed as enumerators, REACH hired temporary staff to conduct the assessment from among the refugee population of Doro and nearby host community.

At the request of UNHCR, the assessment aimed to cover every household in Doro camp, so that GPS points collected could be used to construct an address system. When shelters were found to be empty, these were marked and their GPS point recorded so that follow up visits could be made. If households were still empty after three return visits, they were omitted from the survey. Reasons for empty shelters include internal movement within the camp, movement between camps, and temporary returns to Sudan.

11


Despite these efforts, the organic and transient nature of the camp, and lack of address system, meant that some households within the camp may have been inadvertently missed.

Doro is organised into 41 “villages”, as shown in map 2, below. Each village managed by a sheik, or community leader. Each enumerator was assigned to one sheikh, and was responsible for interviewing each household in that sheikh’s village.

Map 2: Doro Camp Village Communities

Representativeness The initial raw sample consisted of 8,113 households. Data cleaning led to the exclusion of 393 records, mainly due to missing responses or inadequate completion times. The analysed dataset therefore consisted of 7,720 records. The survey is therefore representative at a 99% confidence level, with a margin of error of +/-0.9%.

Analysis Throughout this report, findings in each sector are presented at camp level. Where relevant, findings are analysed spatially using ArcGIS, to understand the distribution of findings throughout the camp. A series of maps shows variation in responses across the camp and examines the proximity of key infrastructure in relation to minimum SPHERE standards. While several maps are included in the body of the text, additional maps can be found in Annex 1. In some sections, findings from Doro camp are compared to those in Yusuf Batil Camp, which were collected as part of a similar assessment, conducted by REACH

12


in summer 2015.9 The two assessments used the same methodology and many of the same questions; results from the two studies can be compared with a 99% confidence and 0.9% margin of error.

Limitations

A lack of mobile phone reception in the camp, and a limited budget for radios meant that communication with enumerators during data collection was challenging. As a result, two field coordinators were tasked with communicating with enumerators directly, each managing between 5 and 10 enumerators. Since enumerators were spread out over a camp of over 50,000 people, it was not always possible to effectively monitor enumerator performance. In order to mitigate potential data collection issues, data quality was verified on a daily basis and enumerators were briefed every morning. Personalised feedback was provided for enumerators producing sub-standard data in order to address the problem quickly.

The pool of candidates from which to select enumerators was limited, since the majority of potential candidates had limited education and low levels of literacy in English. Many were also unfamiliar with the smartphones used for data collection. Learning from the experience in Yusuf Batil camp, a longer period than usual was allowed for enumerator training, in order to ensure that the questions, methodology and technology were fully understood. In addition, daily briefings with the team allowed enumerators to ask questions and address any problems they may have encountered 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 data collection. In particular, rising tensions meant that Mabanese supervisors were unable to walk around safely in the camp for several days, which created delays. As much as possible, team structure was shifted during this period so that refugees could continue collecting data in the camp, while host community staff were in the office helping with administrative or human resources issues, and as a result, the assessment did not come to a halt.

Limited financial resources meant that it was difficult to collect data in a shorter timeframe. For future assessments, selecting a representative sample of households within the camp would prove more cost and time effective.

Mid-way through data collection, the decision was made to change the data-collection platform from ODK to KoBo. While the latter enable data to be uploaded much more quickly at the end of each day of data collection, and enabled field coordinators to upload directly with limited supervision, the switch between the two platforms resulted in data for a small number of questions to become separated. The loss of unique identifiers has limited the ability to make comparisons between demographic data such as the sex and age of household members and other indicators. For future assessments, the same data collection platform will be used throughout in order to enable more detailed analysis.

9 REACH (2015) Yusuf Batil Multi Sector Needs Assessment Report, November 2015.

http://www.reachresourcecentre.info/system/files/resource-documents/reach_ssd_report_camp_yusif_batil_refugee_camp_multi_sector_needs_assessment_nov2015_0.pdf

13


FINDINGS

This section presents the main findings from the assessment of Doro refugee camp. It begins with description of the demographic profile of the population in Doro, and their priority reported concerns.

The subsequent sections examine their top three priority concerns, food, security and water, in order of their reported importance to the camp population. The final sections provide an overview of findings related to education, shelter and access to information.

Population profile

Demographics

The population of Doro is predominantly young, with 80.7% of individuals under the age of 18, and 61.3% under the age of 12. This large population of minors is cared for by a much smaller population of working age, leading to very high dependency ratios. The age dependency ratio in Doro is 270, meaning that every 100 individuals of working age (15-64), support 270 dependents aged under 15 or over 64. This figure is around three times higher than the latest age dependency ratios for South Sudan, of 85,10 and more than twice as high as those observed in Yusuf Batil Camp.11

The particularly high age dependency ratio observed is in part due to the absence of many males between the ages of 18 and 59: there are more than twice as many females in this age group (12.6%) than males (5.9%), as illustrated in the population pyramid below.

Figure 1: Doro camp population pyramid, disaggregated by age and sex

Working-age males are likely to absent for a variety of reasons, including tending livestock outside the camp, or temporary returns to Blue Nile state, where refugees are reportedly working in artisanal gold mines, located around two days walk from Doro camp.12

Household composition

With an uneven distribution of adult males and females, contrary to local custom, heads of household were found to be evenly split between females (50.1%) and males (49.9%). This is also very different to the situation in Yusuf Batil camp, where 65% of heads of household were male and 35% female.13

10 World Bank (2014) Age dependency ratios for South Sudan 11 REACH (2015) Yusuf Batil Camp Multi-Sector Needs Assessment, November 2015 12 Nuba reports (2014) Gold for Food in Sudan’s Blue Nile. 13 REACH (2015) Yusuf Batil Camp Multi-Sector Needs Assessment, November 2015

14.2%

15.1%

9.5%

12.6%

0.6%

15.9%

16.1%

9.9%

5.9%

0.2%

0 - 2

3 - 5

5-17

18 - 59

60+

Age

gro

up

female male

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND

http://nubareports.org/gold-for-food-in-sudans-blue-nile/

14


Assessed household sizes ranged from 1-14 members, although the vast majority of households (93.1%) had between one and eight members. The average household size was found to be 4.6, the same as in Yusuf Batil camp. On average, female-headed households were slightly smaller than male-headed households, with 4.5 members, compared to 4.7.

One in ten heads of household (10.7%) reported to have a disability or impairment, most commonly physical or visual impairments, which together represent 65.4% of all reported disabilities, as shown in Figure 2 below. Of those reporting disabilities, 9.1% reported multiple disabilities, suggesting these households may be particularly vulnerable.

Figure 2: Disabilities reported by heads of household, by type

When asked about the reasons for their disabilities, the vast majority of disabled heads of household attributed this to disease (46.6%). Disabled male heads of household were more likely to report that their disability was a result of a war-related injury (17.6%) than female heads of household (2.5%), clearly illustrating the toll of the ongoing conflict on young males in particular.

Map 3: Population density in Doro Camp

1.4%4.4% 4.7%

10.4%13.7%

31.8%33.6%

Other Speech Mental /Intellectual

Hearing Chronic disease Visual Physical

% a

ll re

port

ed d

isab

ilitie

s

15


Population density

As a largely self-settled camp, the population of Doro arrived at different times and set up shelters in community groups that mirrored their villages in Sudan. The first arrivals began to arrive in Doro as early as January 2011, with 11.5% of households (or 6,500 individuals) reporting to have arrived prior to the camp’s official opening in November 2011, and a further 55.5% (31,500 individuals) in the two months that followed. Due to the organic nature and rapid growth, the population is very unevenly distributed across the site.

Map 3, on the previous page, shows population density across the camp. The most densely populated areas, shown in red and orange, include the villages of Benamayu 1 and 2 situated in the northeast of the camp; and the villages of Kolnugura and Borfa, in the southeast. Interestingly, the more recently planned and constructed Dar-es-Salaam area in the west of the camp also has a relatively high population density.

Priority reported concerns

When asked about their first, second and third priority needs, refugees overwhelmingly reported short-term, lifesaving needs among their top priorities, despite the fact that the vast majority (97.7%) have been displaced for more than three years.

Across the camp, the top priority needs were reported as food (41.8%), and security (36.1%). Water was reported as the first priority need by 8.4%, and as a second or third priority by 51.8% of all households. Non-food items (NFIs), education and health were also commonly reported as second or third priority needs, as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Primary concerns reported by refugee households

The focus on lifesaving needs as a first priority shows that despite relatively long-term displacement, many refugees are failing to meet their basic needs. The inability to establish sustainable livelihoods to produce or purchase food, together with ongoing conflict with host communities—in many cases related to lack of available land—appears to have left refugees reliant on external assistance for food, water, and protection.

Food Security and Livelihoods

Food was the most commonly reported priority need by refugees in Doro, reported by 41.8% of households. This section explores food security and livelihoods in Doro, focusing on food sources; food consumption; coping strategies; and food production.

16


Food sources

Refugees are highly reliant on humanitarian assistance, with the vast majority (93.9%) reporting assistance from the World Food Programme (WFP) as their primary food source. WFP rations consist of sorghum, pulses and vegetable oil, which are distributed to all households in the camp on a monthly basis. As of August 2015, around the start of data collection, WFP rations in Doro were reduced by 30%.14 Food distributions in Doro are managed by Samaritan’s Purse, who also conduct supplementary nutrition programmes.

When asked about their second source of food, almost half of refugees (48.1%) reported buying food from the market or store. The largest proportion of households (25.9%) reported having no third food source, while around one in six households reported purchasing food on credit (18.3%), exchanging or borrowing food (15.3%), or accepting gifts from family or friends (15.3%). It is important to note that this question did not include the option “self-production”, although it is clear from the large proportion of households reporting to grow crops and keep livestock that this constitutes an important additional source of food for many refugee households.

The largest proportion of households (42.4%) reported spending less than 50 South Sudanese Pounds (SSP) on food in the 30 days prior to assessment, the equivalent of 16.9 USD.15 As shown in figure 4, only a small proportion of households (11.1%) spend more than 200 SSP on food per month, the equivalent of 67.8 USD. The relatively small amount spent on food by the majority of households, and the frequent reports of other strategies to acquire food, such distributions, borrowing or barter, credit, and gifts, point to a limited access to resources with which to buy food.

Indeed, a recent food assessment of food security and livelihoods of refugees by DRC found that 50.7% of male refugees and 50.3% percent of female refugees in Maban County have no source of income.16 The study reported that half of households in Doro camp had no source of income, primarily due to the scarcity of available livelihood opportunities, and a lack of education and skills.

Figure 4: Reported monthly expenditure on food (SSP)

Food consumption

Households reported an average of 2.1 meals a day, although almost a quarter of households (24.8%) reported to have consumed only one meal or less in the past 24 hours. The most commonly consumed foodstuffs include those found in WFP rations, such as cereals, oils or fats, as well as

14 Interview with Food Security and Livelihoods focal point, DRC. 15 All rates from InfoEuro, as of October 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm 16 Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment in Maban, Upper Nile, South Sudan, Danish Refugee Council, January 2015

42.4%

31.3%

15.1%

5.5%2.0% 1.9% 1.7%

0-50 51-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 500+

% h

ouse

hold

s

Monthly expeniture on food (SSP)

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm

17


vegetables, primarily produced for households’ own consumption.17 However, even vegetables—the most frequently consumed food group—were only eaten daily by 40% of households.

Figure 5, shows the reported frequency of consumption of key food groups in the seven days prior to the assessment. While vegetables and cereals were commonly eaten by most households on several days a week; protein rich foods like meat or fish, milk, and eggs were consumed much less often. Almost two thirds of all households (65.3%) reported having consumed no milk or dairy products at all in the past seven days; 33.9% no meat or fish; and 83.1% no eggs.

Figure 5: Reported household consumption of key food groups in the 7 days prior to assessment

Vegetables Cereals Oils/

fats Sweets Pulses/

nuts Spices Meat/

fish Milk/ dairy

Eggs

Nu

mb

er o

f d

ays

foo

d g

rou

p e

aten

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Proportion of households

80% 0%

The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a measure of the frequency of consumption and the nutritional value of food consumed. A household’s consumption of different food groups in a given week is converted into a score based on their nutritional value and organised into three categories. In South Sudan, food consumption scores are calculated using the following thresholds: poor (0-21); borderline (21.5-35); and acceptable (over 35).

Based on these thresholds, 43.5% of households were found to have acceptable food consumption scores; 38.4% to have borderline scores; and 18.1% to have poor food consumption score, as shown in Figure 6, below.

Figure 6: Proportion of households by food consumption score (FCS)

17 Interview with Food Security and Livelihoods focal point, DRC.

43.5%

38.4%

18.1% Acceptable

Borderline

Poor

18


When the distribution of food consumption scores is shown on a map (see Map 9, Annex 1), it is clear that households living in some parts of the camp present significantly lower food consumption scores than others. In particular, the villages of Charli 2, Borfa and Jindi in the southeast of the camp, and the village Samari 4 close to the northeast boundary, recorded high proportions of households with poor and borderline scores.

When examined in more detail, households with poor or borderline food consumption scores appear more likely to share certain characteristics. For example, female-headed households were more likely to exhibit poor food consumption scores than male-headed households (19.8% and 16.5% of these groups, respectively); households where the head was aged under 20 or over 51 were more likely to exhibit poor food consumption scores, compared to those aged 21-50 (23.6% and 16.6% of these groups, respectively); as were those households in which the head suffered from an impairment or disability (20.3% compared to 17.8% without).

Interestingly, no clear correlation was observed when comparing average household spending on food to food consumption scores: households with poor food consumption scores spent an average of 118 SSP per month on food, compared to 92 SSP for households with borderline scores, and 133 SSP for those with acceptable scores. Given relatively low household spending on food across the camp, this suggests that other factors, such as access to assistance and other support, and the ability to produce food are more important determinants of food consumption.

Coping strategies

Faced with a lack of food and insufficient money to purchase food, the vast majority of households in Doro were found to rely on coping strategies to make ends meet. Overall, 98.5% of refugees in Doro reported resorting to at least one consumption-related coping strategy in the past week.

When faced with a lack of food, the most commonly reported strategy was to eat less expensive food. Use of this strategy was reported by reducing the number of meals (reported by 95.8%); and limiting portion size (94.8%). Other commonly reported strategies are shown in Figure 7, below.

One strategy of particular concern is the consumption of seeds intended for planting, which was reported by 56.6% of households. Such strategies reduce households; future productive capacity and can be considered non-reversible. Information from NGO partners operating in the camp suggests that a recent distribution of seeds was delivered late, leaving some households unable to use seeds because of a missed planting season. Care is reportedly being taken to time future distributions to coincide with the planting season.18

18 Interview with food security and livelihoods focal point in Doro, DRC.

19


Figure 7: Proportion of households using coping strategies at least once a week, by strategy

The frequency and type of coping strategies can be combined in a reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI), which allows coping strategies to be compared across different contexts. Low scores mean that few coping strategies are used, while higher scores denote higher levels of vulnerability.

When rCSI scores are mapped, as shown in Map 10 (annex 1) there is some correlation between low levels of food consumption, and more frequent use of coping strategies. However, it also appears that many households are relying on a variety of coping strategies to maintain acceptable levels of consumption, particularly in areas such as Dar-es-Salaam (Gabanite village) and Darfur in the west of the camp, and Benamayu 1 in the east.

Nutrition and supplementary feeding

15.3% households reported that at least one member was taking part in a supplementary nutrition programme. Of those enrolled in supplementary nutrition programmes, the largest proportion (60%) reported that this supplementary feeding was provided by MSF Belgium, followed by supplementary nutrition programmes for women and children by Samaritan’s Purse.

Food production

Crop cultivation in the Maban refugee camps has become critical over the last year, particularly in light of recent cuts to WFP food assistance. As an alternative, humanitarian partners are looking at long-term, more sustainable solutions, particularly the acquisition of land for refugees to farm or graze livestock.

The majority of households (62.7%) reported having planted something in the past year, with 95% of these households growing multiple crops. Staples such as maize and sorghum were among the most popular, cultivated respectively by 90% and 79% of households growing crops. Many of these households also reported growing vegetables, particularly okra (83%) and pumpkin (59%), as shown in figure 8.

One way in which cultivation has been supported is through “kitchen garden clubs”, set up by livelihood actors in the camp. These programmes include up to 22 individuals, and a dedicated focal point, who provides advice and guidance on good practice.19

19 Ibid.

36.0%

50.9%

52.5%

55.9%

56.6%

68.2%

69.8%

70.3%

76.9%

94.8%

95.8%

98.5%

Send household members to beg

Limit adult consumption so workers can eat

Send children to eat with neighbours

Go days without eating

Consume seeds

Limit adult consumption so children can eat

Gather wild foods

Borrow money to buy food

Borrow food from friends or family

Limit portion size

Reduce number of meals

Eat less expensive food

% households

20


The vast majority of households planting crops (90.9%) reported having received seeds from DRC, although a small proportion obtained seeds from other sources, primarily the markets in Doro and Bunj, from previous crops, or from other houses.

Figure 8: Types of crop cultivated by households (multiple selection was allowed)

Access to land

When asked about where they farm, the majority of households (94.5%) reported using refugee camp land for cultivation, although approximately one third reported cultivating land elsewhere as well. 28.3% of refugees reported using host community land for cultivation and 14.6%, communal land, as shown in figure 9, below.

Figure 9: Land used by refugee households for cultivation (multiple selection was allowed)

Access to land for cultivation is a key source of tension with the host community, and according to livelihoods actors in the camp, access to sufficient land for planting is a commonly raised complaint at community meetings.20

The potential for conflict is elevated for those families using host community or communal land for cultivation. Over half of households using communal land reported conflict with the host community over land (54.1%), compared to 39.8% of those using host community land, and 27.5% of those using

20 Interview with food security and livelihoods focal point in Doro, DRC

3%

3%

5%

8%

8%

11%

16%

22%

30%

51%

59%

79%

83%

90%

Onion

Cowpeas

Dodo

Sukumawiki

Augergine

Red pepper

Sesame

Groundnuts

Tomato

Beans

Pumpkin

Sorghum

Okra

Maize

% households planting crops

94.5%

28.3%

14.6%

Refugee camp land Host community land Communal land

% h

ouse

hold

s pl

antin

g cr

ops

21


refugee land. The particularly high proportion of conflict reported by households using communal land suggests that the boundaries of these areas, which are not clearly defined, may be understood differently by two communities.

Livestock

Aside from cultivation, keeping livestock represents the other main livelihood in Doro. Overall, 17% of households in the camp reported owning livestock or animals, which contributed to their household’s ability to produce food or generate an income.

Households reported keeping a diverse range of animals, primarily goats, kept by 59.6% of households, followed by chickens, donkeys, and sheep, as shown in Figure 9, below.

Figure 10: Type of livestock herded

Households reported herding livestock on both refugee camp land (95.8%), host community land (10.4%) and communal land (6.6%). As for households cultivating crops, those households grazing animals on communal land were the most likely to report land-related conflict with the host community (50.7% of this group), compared to those using land belonging to the host community, or the refugee camp.

Livelihood type and food consumption

The ability to supplement WFP rations with home-produced food was found be an important determinant of a household’s food consumption, with 49.5% of households reporting to cultivate crops achieving acceptable food consumption scores, compared to 33.5% of those who did not. A similar correlation was found between households keeping livestock, with 58.7% of herding households achieving acceptable food consumption scores, compared to 40.3% who did not.

Households who cultivated land and kept livestock received the highest food consumption scores, with up to 61.4% of this group achieving acceptable levels of food consumption, and only 9.4% poor scores.

Security and protection

Security was the second most commonly reported need by refugees, with 36.1% reporting this as their top priority.

Tensions and security incidents between refugees and host communities are commonplace in Maban, with competition for resources and perceived inequalities reportedly increasing over time, as displacement

0.8%

3.6%

9.4%

16.9%

22.2%

32.5%

59.6%

Pigs

Cows

Ducks

Sheep

Donkey

Chickens

Goats

% households with animals

22


becomes more protracted.21 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.

One quarter of all households (25.9%) reported having experienced a security incidend since arrival in the camp, most commonly physical attack, harassment, robbery or shelter damage, as shown in the figure below.

Figure 11: Reported security incidents since arrival in the camp (multiple selection allowed)

When compared to nearby Yusuf Batil camp, where security was rated as the top priority by the majority of households, security incidents were actually reported by lower proportion of households in Yusuf Batil (14%) than in Doro (25.9%). Incident types were also found to be different between the two camps: a much smaller proportion of affected households reported violence against individuals in Yusuf Batil, with 12% reporting physical attack, compared to 53% in Doro.

When the distribution of reported incidents is mapped, several observations can be made: incidents were more commonly reported by households located in the centre of the camp, and on the south-western boundary, closest to the town of Bunj. While households reporting incidents of all types are spread throughout most of the densely populated areas of the camp, the villages of Bee and Chali 1 in the centre of the camp, and those in the more recently constructed Dar-es-Salaam area to the west, are notable for the absence of households reporting security incidents (see Map 10, annex 1).

Referral of security incidents

In the case of a security incident, the overwhelming majority of households (89.9%) reported to turning to their traditional community leaders, sheiks, as their first point of referral. Much smaller proportions reported turning to camp committees, or umdas, while less than 2% reported going directly to dedicated NGOs, UNHCR, or camp managers. The high proportion of households reporting to sheiks underlines the importance of working with traditional community structures in addressing security incidents in the camp.

21 Displacement, Disharmony and Disillusion. Understanding Host-Refugee Tensions in Maban County, South Sudan. Danish Demining Group.

53%50%

45% 43%

2%

Physical attack Harrassment Robbery Tent damaged Other

% h

ouse

hold

s re

port

ing

inci

dent

s

23


Figure 12: Reported first point of referral in the case of harassment

As well as providing the first point of contact for the reporting of security incidents, the large majority of households (78.2%) reported that sheiks represented their primary source of information in the camp. A further 11% reported referring to the radio for information; 4.9% to dedicated NGOs; 4.3% to the church or mosque; and 1.4% to relatives or friends.

While only cited as the primary source of information by one in ten households, over two thirds of the camp population reported listening to the radio. 73% of households reported listening to Radio Dabanga; followed by Tamazuj (51%); Omderman (49%) and Salaam (40%).

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

With access to water reported as the third most common priority need, and as a second or third priority by over 50% it is clear that water constitutes a topic of concern for a large proportion of refugees in Doro.

Water is supplied to the camp through 17 boreholes, which supply 106 tap stands. Water is also available from a smaller number of hand pumps, and several large storage tanks, located throughout the camp. Water is generally available from 7am to midday, then from 4pm-7pm, although pressure on the water supply in some villages means that water is used up before the end of the day. In this case, households from these villages commonly travel to the next village where water is still available.22

The majority of households reported getting their water from tap stands (87.1%), or hand pumps (12.4%), with only a very small proportion of households (0.5%) reporting reliance on other sources, such rain water or hafirs,23 as their primary water source.

Households reported making between one and six or more trips a day to the tap stand or hand pump, although the largest proportion of households (37.2%) reported making three trips a day to fetch water, as shown in Figure 13 below.

22 Interview with WASH focal point, ACTED. 23 Hafirs are underground reservoirs, traditionally used to store rainwater for both agricultural purposes and drinking.

89.9%

4.9%

3.4% 1.9%

Sheik

Camp Committee

Umda

Others

24


Figure 13: Average number of trips to fetch water per day, reported by households

While spatial analysis shows that only two shelters in the camp fall outside the minimum SPHERE minimum standard of 500m away from a borehole, the uneven distribution of the population across the site means that some water points face increasing pressure than others.

Waiting at the water point was reportedly common, with over half of households (57.7%) reporting to wait for more than 30 minutes on average. This means that the majority of households have waiting times that fall below the minimum SPHERE standard, which recommends that queuing time at a water source should be no more than 30 minutes24. Excessive waiting times means that individuals from many households are likely to spend over 1.5 hours a day waiting for water, reducing available time to engage in livelihood activities, care for children or the elderly, or earn an income.

Figure 14: Reported length of time spent waiting at water source

According to WASH actors within the camp, excessive waiting times may be due to the intermittent water supply, deliberate damage to infrastructure such as storage bladders in some communities, and fuel to pump boreholes, which often runs out before the end of the week.25 When access to water in some areas of the camp is restricted due to any of these reasons, households commonly travel to other areas of the camp leading to increased pressure in these communities. When the spatial distribution of waiting times is mapped (see Map 6), waiting times not only appear higher in particular areas of the camp than in others, but correspond to areas in which one tap stand serves a more densely populated area.

24 http://www.spherehandbook.org/en/water-supply-standard-1-access-and-water-quantity/ 25 Interview with WASH focal point, ACTED.

7.8%

25.5%

37.2%

16.4%

7.1% 6.0%

One Two Three Four Five Six +

% h

ouse

hold

s

19.7%

22.6%

17.9%16.8%

23.0%

0-15 mins 15-30 mins 31-45 mins 46-60 mins 60+ mins

% h

ouse

hold

s

time (minutes)

http://www.spherehandbook.org/en/water-supply-standard-1-access-and-water-quantity/

25


Map 4: Reported waiting times in Doro camp

Sanitation

When asked about their usual location of defecation, the largest proportion of households (38.4%) reported using NGO-constructed latrines. However, almost a third of households (31%) reported open defecation, either in the bush, or in rivers, streams or hafirs. While open defecation in general exacerbates the risk of health problems, including diarrhoea and malnutrition, those who defecate in the bush are also particularly vulnerable to protection risks, such as harassment, especially when on host community land.

Figure 15: Reported location of defecation in Doro camp

23.5% of households defecate in family owned and constructed latrines, as recommended in SPHERE standards. Having focussed in the past on communal family-served latrines, WASH actors are beginning to place increasing focus on household latrines, although to date, household latrine construction has not yet taken place in all villages of the camp.26 WASH actors reported that a common problem associated with household latrines was the removal of plastic sheets for use elsewhere. Discussions are ongoing about the use of grass as an alternative cladding material in future.

26 Interview with WASH focal point, ACTED.

38.4%

31.0%

23.4%

7.3%

NGO latrine Open defecation Family latrine Community latrine

% h

ouse

hold

s

26


As can be seen in Map 7, open defecation is not restricted to particular locations, and instead practised across all parts of the camp. However, open defecation is generally found in less-densely populated areas of the camp, and more common in the villages of Wadaga, in the west; and in Samari 4, Jindi and Bee.

Map 5: Location of households practising open defecation

Hand washing

All households in the camp reported hand washing at least once a day, with over 79% of heads of household reporting they washed their hands in the morning, before eating, and before cooking. While a similarly high proportion reported washing hands after defecating, the 12% of households who did not report doing so are at heightened risk of disease.

Figure 16: Reported hand-washing practices throughout the day

The most commonly reported hand-washing method was using ash, reported by 48.3% of the population. A further 34.1% reported using soap, and 17.4% only water. Hand-washing with water only

27


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.27

The use of ash for hand washing has been encouraged by community hygiene promotion teams in Doro, in an attempt to increase self-sufficiency, and reduce dependence on soap distributed by aid actors.28 These activities appear to have been effective, since the proportion of households using ash for hand washing is considerably higher in Doro, than in Yusuf Batil, where only 19% reported using ash for hand washing.

Education

One in ten households (9.8%) in Doro reported that school-age children were not attending school. When asked about reasons for non-attendance, households gave a variety of reasons, most commonly that schools were too far away, reported by a third of households (33%). The second most commonly reported reason was that children were too old to attend school within the camp (19%), while the response that children were needed to work, either at home, tending livestock or in the market, was given by 18% of households reporting out of school children. 13% of households with out of school children reported that their children had no clothes for school. This suggests that assistance to provide school uniforms could make education more accessible to many families.

Figure 17: Reported reasons for children not attending school (multiple reasons allowed)

Of those households reporting that school was too far away, spatial analysis reveals that only a small proportion (9%) are actually living more than 1km away from the nearest school, with the majority (55%) living within 500m of school. While crossing even relatively small distances to get to school is considered dangerous for very young children, these findings suggest that distance from school is likely to be only one of several reasons for non-attendance.

When examined in more detail, several differences were observed between the demographic profile of households in which children were working, and those where children attended school. Children reported to be working were generally living in smaller households, with an average of 4.2 members compared to 4.7; more likely to be living in a female-headed household (52% compared to 47.3%); and with a single or widowed household head (17.3% compared to 10.6%). Households reporting child labour also reported

27 Mercy Corps (2009) Wash Guidelines. 28 Interview with WASH focal point, ACTED.

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

8%

8%

13%

18%

19%

33%

No food at school

Child is not interested

Dislike mixing with other communities

Child is ill or disabled

School only available for boys

Other

Low quality of education

No clothes for school

Child is working

Child is too old for camp schools

School is too far

% households with out of school children

http://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/WASH%20Guidelines.pdf

28


higher monthly spending on food (132 SSP compared to 114 SSP29) than households where children in school, suggesting that their income makes a direct contribution to their family’s ability to purchase food.

Map 6: Households reporting that school is “too far”, and distance to schools in Doro camp

Shelter

Similar to other refugee camps in Maban, households in Doro live in a mixture of shelter types, including tents; traditional Tukul structures; local materials including grass, wood and mud; and materials from aid actors such as CGI, or tarpaulin.

When refugees first arrived in Maban, the majority lived in makeshift shelters or tents provided by UNHCR. By 2014, many of these tents had exceeded their planned lifespan and were in very poor condition. In order to improve refugees’ living conditions, UNHCR, DRC and ACTED began to provide substitute transitional shelters. As in Yusuf Batil camp, shelter kits provided to refugees in Doro consisted of wooden poles, sticks (wall fillers), nails, hoop iron and corrugated iron sheets for roofing.30

The average number of shelters per household was 1.5, although some households reported having up to 9 shelters. Despite this, the vast majority (90.5) owned between one or two shelters.

Shelter types

The largest proportion of shelters in Doro (38.6%) were built of grass, wood and mud, while shelters consisting of wood and tarpaulin (18.2%), and mud, wood, grass and tarpaulin (14.3%) constitute the second most commonly observed shelter types, as shown in Figure 18. Only 6.1% of shelters were tents, the majority of these from UNHCR (5.62%).

29 Equal to 44.7 and 38.6 USD, respectively. 30 Interview with shelter focal point, DRC

29


Figure 18: Type of shelter present in Doro Camp

Shelter condition

Shelter condition was determined through enumerator observation, based on a four point scale. Great condition denoted a solid structure, with no holes in walls or roof, and no repairs needed; like new if a tent. Good condition indicated a serviceable structure, with some wear, but not need urgent repairs. In contrast, poor condition refers to structures in in danger of collapse/severe deterioration, with large un-patchable holes, destroyed mudding, or missing door.

Overall, the majority of shelters (68.8%) were judged to be in good or fair condition, although more than one in five shelters (28.9%) was judged to be in poor condition, and in need of replacement. When examined in more detail, certain shelter types appear to be in considerably better condition than others, with the large majority of corrugated iron (CGI) structures judged to be in great or good condition (76.6%), compared only other shelter types, where the large majority were found to be in only poor or fair condition.

Figure 19: Shelter quality, by shelter type (based on enumerator observation)

When transitional shelter programming was introduced by UNHCR and partners in 2014, households were provided with shelter materials from outside the camp, and support for the most vulnerable families with the construction and mudding of their structures.31 However, shortly after the programme was introduced, the timber structure (made of cut wood from the market) was replaced with local wooden poles due to declining timber supplies in the market. The use of local wood instead of better quality timber proved to be problematic, due to its greater vulnerability to termite damage and humidity, which may

31 Interview with shelter focal point, DRC

38.6%

18.2%14.3%

12.0%7.2% 6.1%

3.7%

Grass, Wood andMud

Tarpulin andWood

Mud, Wood,Grass and Tarp

Other CGI Tent Wood Tukul

% s

helte

rs

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CGI

Grass, Mud & Wood

Others

Mud, Wood, Grass & Tarp

Wood & Tarp

Tents

Wood Tukul

% shelter type

poor

fair

good

great

30


account for the large proportion of wooden structures judged to be in poor condition. As in Yusuf Batil camp, future shelter programmes in Doro camp will use more resilient cut timber instead of local wood.32

Aside from materials received from NGOs, the traditional designs of most shelters in Doro use local materials such as grass, mud and wooden poles, as shown in Figure 20. Approximately one third of households (34%) reported sourcing materials from the bush, risking their personal safety as they gather resources from host community land.

Figure 20: Reported origin of shelter materials (multiple selection allowed)

Flood duration

Like much of Maban, Doro 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.

Overall, 29.7% of households reported flooding in the past year, a much smaller proportion than in Yusuf Batil, where over half of all households (52%) reported flooding. When asked about the length of time that long standing or stagnant water had remained on their plot of land during the 2014 wet season, the vast majority of these households (87.2%) reported that flooding lasted less than one week, as shown in Figure 21 below.

Figure 21: Reported duration of seasonal flooding in the camp

An examination of the spatial distribution of these households across the camp reveals two main areas of concern: the more recently constructed Dar-es-Salaam area to the east, where many households were flooded for more than two weeks; and between Chali 1 and Chali 2 towards the east.

32 Interview with shelter focal point, DRC

34%

29%

22%

10%

2% 2%

Bush (hostcommunity land)

NFI distribution Bush (refugeecamp land)

Market (refugeecamp)

Market (hostcommunity)

Other

% m

ater

ials

use

d

87.2%

9.8%1.8% 1.2%

Under 1 week 1-2 weeks 2-4 weeks Over 4 weeks

% f

lodd

ed h

ouse

hold

s

duration of flooding

31


Map 7: Reported duration of flooding in Doro camp

32


CONCLUSION

Four years since its establishment, Doro refugee camp is the largest in Maban. The camp has a relatively stable population of over 50,000 individuals, the majority of whom been living in Doro since 2011. This study sought to provide a better understanding of living conditions in Doro camp, and provide an evidence-base against which the situation can be monitored. Findings are based on a sample of 7,720 household surveys, conducted within the camp between August and November 2015.

Findings show that despite the length of their displacement, and significant support provided by humanitarian actors across many sectors, refugees in Doro are still struggling to meet their most basic, short term needs for food, protection and water.

Food security in Doro is of particular concern, with over half of all households (56.5%) found to exhibit poor or borderline food consumption scores. The vast majority of households rely on WFP assistance for as their primary food source, which has recently been cut by 30%, and with limited livelihood opportunities, have little access to money to purchase food. Instead, households frequently turn to a variety of coping strategies to maintain their consumption. Almost all households reported eating less expensive food (98.5%), as well as borrowing, or relying on wild foods. Over half (56.6%) reported eating seeds intended for planting, with a similar proportion going for days without eating. Such extreme coping strategies have longer term negative impacts, affecting both future productivity, and the development of human capital, and leaving households increasingly vulnerable. Even households with acceptable food consumption scores were found to be relying on multiple coping strategies, which are likely to become exhausted if the current situation continues.

Livelihood opportunities, such as growing crops or herding cattle were found to make an important contribution to household food consumption, with households engaged in these activities significantly more likely to exhibit acceptable levels of food consumption than others. However, insufficient land is available inside the camp boundaries, forcing many households to use host community or communal land, where up to 54.1% of households report conflict with the host community.

Rising tensions with the host community, mainly with regards to land and natural resources, mean that security incidents, such as physical attack and harassment, are commonplace. More than one in four households (25.9%) reported involvement in a security incident since arrival in Doro, compared to 14% in Yusuf Batil, where security was reported as the top priority concern. While food was ranked above security by households in Doro, the prevalence of incidents suggests that the problem is no less concerning, rather that the lack of access to food is a more pressing concern in the short term.

Based on the findings in this report, aid actors should address the urgent need for food assistance in Doro, both through direct provision of food assistance and through the development of livelihood opportunities to increase refugees’ self-sufficiency in the long term. Better timing of seed distributions to coincide with the planting season, and training for households engaged in cultivation would ensure that available land is used as efficiently as possible.

In parallel, dialogue is needed with the host community in relation to the surrounding land, in particular to more clearly define rights to communal land, and ensure that both refugees and host communities are able to access this land safely. Further research should also be conducted into the availability of livelihoods other than cultivation and herding, to understand what types of alternative livelihoods might be available, and how additional opportunities could be developed for the mutual benefit of the host community and refugees. Such an approach could involve skills training and business development opportunities for both groups, simultaneously addressing the root cause of current tensions.

In addition to refugees’ primary concerns related to food and protection, the assessment identified problems in other sectors, which limit household access to water and sanitation, shelter and education. In relation to WASH, the high rate of open defecation is of particular concern, with almost one third of

33


households (31%) practising open defecation. Increased provision of household latrines, supervision of their construction and a switch to materials less likely to be stolen could all help to address this situation. In addition, hygiene promotion activities around the benefits of using latrines could help to change practices, building on successes such as the recent campaign to promote hand washing with ash.

With one in ten households reporting that children do not attend school, activities to widen access to education, such as adult education or vocational training, could help to address the high proportion of households reporting that their children were too old to attend school in the camp. In addition, targeted support to families who are unable to afford uniforms, or whose children are currently working, could help these children to access education.

Finally, the provision of targeted shelter support would improve the quality of homes in Doro, particularly the one in five shelters judged to be in poor condition and in urgent need of replacement. Care should be taken to ensure that training is conducted in parallel to any shelter interventions, in order to ensure that families are able to care for and maintain their shelters in the longer term, using locally available materials.

34


ANNEXES

Annex 1: Maps

Map 8: Distribution of households by food consumption score

Map 9: Reduced Coping Strategy Index scores in Doro camp

35


Map 10: Households reporting security incidents in Doro

Map 11: Distance to water points in Doro

36


Annex 2: Household Questionnaire

1. Household Information

H 1. Are you the Head of the Household (HHH)?

Yes No

H 2. If no, can you answer on behalf of the HHH?

Yes No

H 3. What is the HHH’s Sex?

Male Female

H 4. What is the HHH’s Age?

Enter Integer

H5. What is the HHH’s Marital status?

Single Married Polygamy Divorced Widowed

H6. Does the HHH have any impairment or disability?

Yes No

H7. If yes, which impairments does the person have? (select multiple)

Physical

Visual

Hearing

Speech

Mental/Intellectual

Unsure

H8. If other, please specify__________________

H9. How severely do these impairments affect their ability to function?

Very Little

A Little

Somewhat

Quite a lot

Very Much

Extremely difficult

H10. What caused their impairment?

They were born with it

War related injury

Accidental injury

Attacked by a civilian

Attacked by an animal

Disease

Unknown

37


Other, please specify:______

H11. Is there anyone over 16 years of age who can care for them?

Yes No

H12. Which year did you arrive in Maban?

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

H13. In which month did you arrive in Maban?

January February March April May June

July August September October November December

H14. What is your UNHCR Household ID number?

Enter UNHCR ID Number

H15. What is the household’s ration card number?

Enter household ration card number

H16. How many people are on the ration card?

Enter Integer (number of people)

H17. What is your community’s name?

Select community name from list

H18. Do you share this shelter with another ration card holder?

Yes No

H19. Assign House Number (Enter below and write on house)

Write number on house

H20. What is your Sheik’s name?

Select Sheik’s name from list

2. Demographic Information:

Note: Age and gender of the other household members repeats for each family member on ration card)

D6. What is the sex of the household member?

Male Female

D7. What is the age of the household member?

Enter integer

D8. What is their marital status?

Single Married Polygamy Divorced Widowed

D9. Does the household member have any impairments?

Yes No

38


D3. If yes, what impairments does the person have?

None

Physical

Visual

Hearing

Speech

Mental/Intellectual

Unsure

Other, please specify:__________

D11. How severely do these impairments affect their ability to function?

Very Little

A Little

Somewhat

Quite a lot

Very Much

Extremely difficult

D12. What caused their impairment?

They were born with it

War related injury

Accidental injury

Attacked by a civilian

Attacked by an animal

Disease

Unknown

Other, please specify:______

D13. Is there anyone over 16 years of age who can care for them?

Yes No

3. Shelter/Environment

S1. Have you suffered from flooding in your current location? If yes. How long was there standing water?

No flooding Less than 1 week 1 to 2 weeks

2 weeks to 1 month 1 to 2 months More than 2 months

S2. How many individual shelters does your household have?

Enter Integer

S3. What type of structure is it?

UNHCR Tent

Tukul (mud, wood, and grass)

Tent (Japanese)

Shelter (Grass and Wood)

Shelter (Tarpaulin and Wood)

39


Tent (Other NGO)

UNHCR CGI Shelter

Other, please specify:____________

S4. What condition is it in? (Observation by enumerator)

Great

Good

Fair

Poor

S6. If selected a tent, where did you get your shelter?

Friend/Inherited UNHCR/DRC Distribution Other NGO, please specify:____

Host community Market Refugee Market Other, please specify:______

S7. If another shelter type, where did you get the materials for your shelter?*

Friend/Inherited Bush (host community) Bush (refugee camp)

NFI Distribution (UNHCR/DRC) Refugee market Host community Market

Other, please specify:_______

S8. Does the structure have any of the following?*

Toilet/Latrine Shower/Bathing Area

S9. How many people live in the structure?

Enter Integer

4. Water Sanitation and Hygiene

W1. What is your main source for drinking water?

Tap Stand Hand Pump River/Stream

Rain-water puddle Other, please specify:______ Hafir

W2. On average, how many trips does your family make to fetch water each day?

Enter Integer

W3. What is the average quantity of water collected by the family each time you go to a water source?

Enter Integer (in Litres)

W4. How many minutes do you wait at the water source to get water each time?

Enter Integer (In minutes)

W5. Where do you and your family usually defecate?

Latrine built by NGO Bush Latrine Built by community

40


Family-owned and constructed Latrine

River/Stream Other, please specify:______

W9. At what times of the day do you wash your hands?

In the Morning Before Cooking After Defecating

Before Breastfeeding After cleaning child’s faeces Before eating

W10. What do you usually wash your hands with?

Soap Ash Water Nothing

5. Education

E1. Are there children of school-going age living here that are not attending school?

Yes No

E2. If yes, what are the reasons they are not attending school?*

The school is too far

They must work from home/gather water, firewood, and sand

They must tend livestock

The quality of the school is not very good

I don’t want them to attend school with children of other communities

They must work at the market

They are too old to go to school in the camp

Only boys can attend school

Other, please specify:____________

E3. What recreational activities do your children participate in?

Football

Volleyball

Movies

Nothing/Loitering

Playing Games

Working

Making Toys

Other, please specify:______________

E4. What recreational activities would you like to see your children participate in?

Football

Volleyball

Movies

Nothing/Loitering

Playing Games

Working

Making Toys

Other, please specify:______________

E5. Which religion do you practise?

Islam

41


Christianity

Other, please specify:________

6. Protection/Camp Management

P1. Have you, or other members of your household experienced any security incident in the camp within the last 6 months?

Yes No

P2. If yes, what happened? (multiple selection allowed)

Robbery

Tent damaged or destroyed

Physical Attack

Harassment or intimidation

Other, please specify:________

P3. Who would you go to first to report an incident of harassment?

Sheik

Umda

Camp Committee

Camp Manager

UNHCR

Dedicated NGO

Other, please specify:_______

P4. What is your primary source of information?

Sheik

Radio

Church/Mosque/Religious Service

Dedicated NGO


P5. Do you have access to a Radio?

Yes No

P6. If yes, what stations do you listen to?

Radio Miria

Radio Salaam

Radio Tamazuj

Radio Omderman

BBC Radio

Radio FM Juba

Radio VOA

Radio Tamastic

Radio Dabanga

42


P7. Are you currently taking care of any children who are not yours, but the parents are unable to take care of them?

Yes No

7. Livelihoods Information

L1. Have you planted anything in the last year?

Yes No

L2. If yes, what did you plant?

Okra

Beans

Ground Nuts

Sesame/Simsim

Red Pepper

Onion

Sukuma Wiki

Eggplant

Dodo

Pumpkin

Sorghum

Maize

Tomato


L3. Have you received seeds to plant from DRC this year?

Yes No

L4. Did you get seeds from anywhere else (not DRC)?

Yes No

L5. If yes, where did you get them from?

Market in Doro From crops

Market in Bunj Other houses

Searching in the bush

L6. What land did you use?

Host Community Land Refugee owned Land Communal Land

L7. Have you faced any conflict with the host community over land you use?

Yes No

L8. Do you own any livestock?

Yes No

L9. If yes, what do you heard?

43


Cows

Goats

Sheep

Donkeys

Camels

Other, please specify:_______________

L10. Where do you heard them?

Host Community Land Refugee owned Land Communal Land

8. Food Security

F1. What were the top three sources of food for your household over the past 30 days?

First Source Second Source Third Source

Bought from store or market Bought from store or market Bought from store or market

From store or market on credit From store or market on credit From store or market on credit

Gifts from friends or family Gifts from friends or family Gifts from friends or family

Exchanged or borrowed Exchanged or borrowed Exchanged or borrowed

WFP assistance WFP assistance WFP assistance

Non-WFP assistance Non-WFP assistance Non-WFP assistance

Other, please specify_______ Other, please specify_______ Other, please specify_______

F2. How much did you spend on food over the last 30 days (in SSP)?

Enter Integer

F3. Yesterday, how many meals were eaten by your household?

Enter Integer

F4. Over the last 7 days, how many days did you consume the following foods?

Cereals (bread, pasta, wheat flour, rice, bulgur) or tubers or roots (potato, sweet potato) Enter integer (0-7)

Pulses, nuts and seeds

Vegetables and Leaves

Fruits

Meat (organ and flesh meat) or Fish (and other seafood

Eggs

Milk and Dairy products

Oils and Fats

Sweets (sugar, honey, jam, cakes, candy, etc.)

Spices and Condiments

F5. During the last 7 days, how many days did your household have to employ one of the following strategies to deal with a lack of food, or a lack of money to buy food?

Rely on less preferred and less expensive food (ie cheaper lower quality food)

Enter integer (0-7)

Borrow food or get help from a friend or relative

Purchase food with borrowed money

Gather wild food or harvest crops that are not yet ready

44


Consume seed stock meant for next season

Send children to eat with neighbours

Send household members to beg for food

Limit portion sizes at mealtimes

Non-working members of household eat less so working members can eat

Adults do not eat so Children can eat

Reduce number of meals eaten in a day

Skip entire days without eating

9. Greatest Need

G1. Specify the greatest NEED affecting your everyday life.

Security

Access to Food

Access to Water

Access to NFIs

Access to Education

Access to Employment

Access to Healthcare

None

Other, please specify:_________

DORO REFUGEE CAMP COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ......2 Doro Refugee Camp Needs Assessment – December 2015...

Documents

Transcript of DORO REFUGEE CAMP COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ......2 Doro Refugee Camp Needs Assessment – December 2015...