South Sudan

Humanitarian Situation Monitoring, Upper Nile State South Sudan April - July 2021

Attachments

Introduction

Findings reported in this Situation Overview highlight humanitarian needs across Upper Nile State (UNS) over the reporting period April to July 2021. Most notably, reports of severe hunger reported in Melut1 coincided with large-scale IDP returns from Melut to Baliet. Reports of flood-driven population movement alongside limited access to clean drinking water, lack of functioning latrines and floodrelated shelter damage suggest continued population displacement as well as WASH, education and shelter-related needs in flood-afflicted Panyikang. Key findings highlight protection concerns, insecurity-driven population movement and reliance on humanitarian food distributions amid reports of fighting between armed groups and revenge killings in Luakpiny/Nasir and Ulang.

To inform humanitarian actors working outside formal settlement sites, REACH has conducted assessments of hard-to-reach areas in South Sudan since December 2015. Data is collected on a monthly basis through interviews with key informants (KIs) with knowledge of a settlement and triangulated with focus group discussions (FGDs). This situation overview uses data to analyse changes in observed humanitarian needs across UNS between April and July 2021.

Methodology

To provide an indicative overview of the situation in hard-to-reach areas of UNS, REACH conducts interviews with KIs who have recently arrived from, recently visited, or receive regular information from a settlement or “Area of Knowledge” (AoK). Interviews were conducted in the Malakal town, and Protection of Civilian (PoC) site in UNS during the reporting period from April to July 2021. The suspension of humanitarian activities in Renk impeded our coverage of Renk, Manyo and Maban counties. Findings should be considered indicative only of the situation in assessed settlements.

In-depth interviews on humanitarian needs were conducted on a monthly basis using a structured survey tool. After data collection was completed, all data was aggregated at settlement level, and settlements were assigned the modal or most credible response. When no consensus was found for a settlement, that settlement was not included in reporting.

Only counties with interview coverage5 of at least 5% of all settlements in a given month were included in the analysis. Due to access and operational constraints, the specific settlements assessed within each county each month may vary. In order to reduce the likelihood that variations in data are attributable to coverage differences, over time analyses we only conducted for counties with at least 70% consistent payam6 coverage over the period. Quantitative findings were triangulated with focus group discussions (FGDs) and secondary sources. More details of the methodology can be found in the AoK ToR.