SOUTHERN SUDAN - HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN LRA-AFFECTED

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 KHARTOUM 000660 DEPT FOR SE GRATION, S/USSES, AF A/S CARSON, AF/E, PRM NSC FOR MGAVIN AND CHUDSON DEPT PLS PASS USAID FOR AFR/SUDAN ADDIS ABABA ALSO FOR USAU AND REGIONAL REFUGEE COORDINATOR KAMPALA FOR REGIONAL REFUGEE COORDINATOR SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREF PGOV PREL EAID SOCI ASEC KPKO AU UNSC SU SUBJECT: SOUTHERN SUDAN - HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN LRA-AFFECTED AREAS -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. Between May 7 and 14, humanitarian officers from the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (State/PRM) and USAID's Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA) reviewed the ongoing emergency in the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)-affected areas in Eastern and Western Equatoria states. The State/PRM officer visited refugee settlements in Lasu, Central Equatoria State, and Makpandu, Western Equatoria State. State/PRM and USAID/OFDA met with UN agencies, local officials, refugee leaders, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on the ground in the settlements and in Yambio, Yei, and Juba. The team found that the internally displaced person (IDP) response in these settlements lacked a clear strategy and leadership, and was only barely getting humanitarian assistance to an estimated 36,000 IDPs on the ground at the time of the assessment. The team found that under the leadership of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),the response was significantly better organized and on track to meet the basic needs of most of the estimated 17,000 refugees, the majority of whom currently reside in three main settlements. While it is difficult to predict when the IDPs and refugees will return home, USAID/OFDA and State/PRM recommend planning for a minimum 12-month humanitarian response for both refugees and IDPs. USAID/OFDA and State/PRM have mobilized resources to support a rapid increase of the current humanitarian effort and are planning interventions with partners. End Summary. -------------- LRA-AFFECTED AREAS IN EQUATORIA -------------- ¶2. Following renewed LRA attacks in northern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Southern Sudan since September 2008, more than 17,000 Congolese refugees have fled into Central and Western Equatoria states in Southern Sudan and 36,000 people have been internally displaced in the same areas. In addition, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates that the LRA attacks and the strain on scarce resources caused by the influx of IDPs and refugees have severely affected an additional 50,000 people in host communities. The majority of the refugee caseload entered Sudan in January and February 2009, following intensified LRA attacks in DRC by following the tri-country--Uganda, DRC, and Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS)--"Operation Lightning Thunder" military operation against LRA targets in DRC. Relief staff noted that the general trend in internal displacement is population movement away from the Sudan-DRC border towards towns or areas with Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) or Southern Sudan Police Service (SSPS) forces present. In contrast to the refugee population, IDPs continue to reside among host communities and are scattered across many villages. The bulk of the IDP caseload is located in the Ezo-Tambura area, according to IOM. ¶3. LRA attacks continue throughout the region, creating new internal displacement in Southern Sudan. Likewise, new refugees continue to arrive from the DRC, although at a much slower rate than in the beginning of the year (Note: UNHCR reports new arrivals from the DRC at a rate of approximately 30 individuals per week at the Lasu settlement in Central Equatoria. End Note). The latest LRA attack reported in Southern Sudan occurred on May 7, in Gangura, Western Equatoria, triggering both secondary and tertiary IDP movements, according to the UN. ¶4. Continued LRA activity in Western and Central Equatoria and the potential targeting of refugee and IDP settlement areas remain significant concerns. Rumors of LRA activities abound throughout the Equatorias. USAID/OFDA and State/PRM officers saw many local community members armed with bows and arrows, and in some cases AK-47s, in the Yambio and Lasu areas for protection against LRA attacks. (Note: During his travels in the district, the Southern Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission Director for Yambio County keeps a bow in his car to instruct villagers on how to defend themselves, This exemplifies the militarized attitude among the communities in the affected area. End Note.) Continued attacks and prolonged insecurity have added to the difficulty of a sustained and comprehensive humanitarian response in an area already suffering from limited accessibility, poor roads, and heavy rains during six months of the year. ¶5. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC),the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA),and the UN Resident Coordinator's Support Office (RCSO) raised concerns KHARTOUM 00000660 002 OF 005 regarding the use of armed SPLA or SPSS escorts for humanitarian convoys in the Equatorias with State/PRM and USAID/OFDA. At present, all roads in Western Equatoria are at Security Phase III, requiring an armed escort, and UN agencies and NGOs pay between 25 and 35 Sudanese pounds per soldier or police per day, with escorts riding in NGO and UN vehicles in the convoys. OCHA noted that armed escorts who travel with relief convoys can, at times, increase the risk of an LRA attack. OCHA believes that armed escorts in the LRA-affected areas should not be used for relief convoys, based on humanitarian standards of neutrality that encourage maintaining independence from armed groups. Aid staff in Yambio noted that they lack adequate security information or liaisons with police and communities, and felt that they have to rely on the armed escorts for protection in the unpredictable environment. OCHA and RCSO are well-aware of this issue and continue to pursue other options for humanitarian convoy security arrangements. -------------- REFUGEE RESPONSE -------------- ¶6. By early May 2009, when State/PRM and USAID/OFDA officers visited LRA-affected areas in Southern Sudan, UNHCR had established three major "settlement" sites at Ezo and Makpandu in Western Equatoria State and Lasu in Central Equatoria State. UNHCR described these sites as "settlements" instead of "camps" to denote that UNHCR did not plan, at least initially, to offer comprehensive management and assistance to refugee populations in this area, as it assumed that these populations would reside only temporarily in Sudan. ¶7. Refugees fleeing the DRC in late 2008 and early 2009 originally fled to areas just inside Southern Sudan, where they relied largely on host communities for assistance. UNHCR determined it critical to move populations away from border areas that would become inaccessible with the onset of the rainy season in April, and approached the GOSS to allocate land for settlement sites. UNHCR conducted awareness campaigns to educate refugees about the new sites and provided transportation. Due mainly to similar ethnicities on both sides of the border, as well as a history of hosting Sudanese refugees in northeastern DRC, host communities in Southern Sudan and local authorities have been largely welcomed to the new Congolese arrivals and been forthcoming with land and assistance. ¶8. While a majority of the refugees now reside in the Lasu, Ezo, or Makpandu sites, many others remain in their areas of original arrival where they are not receiving regular assistance. As of May 11, UNHCR had registered 17,263 refugees in the following locations: Ezo settlement - 3,727; Lasu settlement - 6,119; Makpandu settlement - 1,219, Gangura - 2,007, James Diko - 134, Madebe - 431, Sakure - 910, Sangua - 292, Tambura - 240, Ukou - 402, Yambio - 1,782. The following paragraphs are summary findings of the three main assisted refugee sites. ¶9. MAKPANDU: The Makpandu site is approximately 1.5 hours northeast of Yambio by road near a small community of the same name. The majority of the approximately 1,200 refugees are Azande, as is the host community. When State/PRM and USAID/OFDA officers visited the site on May 8, the main concerns identified were delays in food distribution and the poor state of health facilities at the site. The one Ministry of Health (MOH) primary health care unit (PHCU) serving the refugee population and the host community suffered from disorganization, lack of proper adherence to standard health protocols, lack of drug supplies, and delayed or non-existent payment of staff salaries. As of early May, Medecins sans Frontieres/Spain (MSF/E) was assuming responsibility for health services at Makpandu, which would represent a vast improvement over the current arrangement. No community-level health surveillance activities had taken place, although the MOH health staff reported common cases of morbidity and mortality in the clinic as: diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infections, and malaria. UNHCR's primary implementing partners in Makpandu are MSF/E for health and World Vision for camp management and food and non-food item (NFI) distributions. ¶10. EZO: State/PRM and USAID/OFDA officers were unable to visit the Ezo site near the DRC and Central African Republic borders in Western Equatoria. Accessibility is an ongoing issue as the road connection from Wau has been cut off due to the onset of rains, and the Yambio-Ezo road is in poor condition and insecure due to reported LRA movements and attacks in the area. WFP reports that sufficient food stocks are prepositioned in Ezo to support the current refugee and IDP populations to the end of the rainy season. KHARTOUM 00000660 003 OF 005 In speaking with UNHCR and NGOs about the settlement, the primary concern was refugee/host community tensions due to the proximity of the refugee settlement to the town. The Uganda People's Defense Force (UPDF) is reportedly positioned in Ezo, which UNHCR noted added to the security of displaced populations in the area. UNCHR's primary partners in Ezo are MSF/E for health and World Vision for management and food and NFI distributions. ¶11. LASU: The Lasu settlement near the DRC border on the Yei-Aba DRC road is the largest Congolese refugee site. Currently, the number of registered refugees is 6,119 people, although this number is expected to drop significantly when UNHCR conducts a verification exercise of original registration numbers. (Note: MSF/Belgium (MSF/B) staff in the camp estimate the population at 4,500 people maximum. End Note.) The refugees have been given 20mx20m plots of land and have begun farming small gardens to supplement food distribution. Many of the refugees in Lasu fled from Aba, DRC, and among the population are a number of skilled workers, including health staff and teachers who are active in these activities in the Lasu settlement. ¶12. MSF/B responded quickly and robustly to the Lasu refugee population and is operating a clinic and health promotion program in the settlement, as well as a PHCU for the surrounding community. UNHCR is urgently trying to locate another NGO to take over health services with the imminent departure of MSF/B. UNHCR is concerned that the level of health service in Lasu will decrease with the departure of MSF/B, as no equally qualified international NGO has expressed interest in assuming health services. When the State/PRM program officer visited the site on May 12, MSF/B was responding to several suspected meningitis cases. Several refugees who had tested positive for tuberculosis (TB) had been transferred to a TB facility in Yei run by German NGO Malteser. ¶13. A second significant concern in Lasu is the abysmal state of the road from Yei to Lasu, which continuing rains threaten to render impassable - cutting off the Lasu-based refugees from Yei. If this occurs, refugees would not have access to the referral hospital in Yei, nor adequate protection oversight from Yei-based UNHCR staff. UNHCR's primary implementing partners at Lasu are MSF/B, who will depart soon, and ACROSS, which recently signed an agreement to provide camp management and education services. ¶14. SECURITY: SPLA and SSPS personnel are present at Makpandu, and SSPS are patrolling Lasu with a minimal force of four policemen alongside members of the refugee community. While no specific security arrangement for refugees in Ezo exists due to their proximity to Ezo town, UNHCR believed that the SPLA and UPDF presence was sufficient for physical protection for the time being. (Note: UPDF were also reportedly present at the Sudan/DRC border just south of Lasu. It was unclear how long UPDF would remain in these areas. End Note.) ¶15. U.S. GOVERNMENT (USG) ASSISTANCE TO REFUGEES: In December 2009, STATE/PRM requested, and was allocated, USD six million from the White House Emergency Refugee and Migration account to respond to Congolese refugees in Uganda, Rwanda, and Southern Sudan. USD four million was contributed to UNHCR in response to an appeal for these Congolese refugees. According to UNHCR Southern Sudan, the organization received USD two million from UNHCR Geneva for an emergency response as well as USD 1.5 million from the Common Emergency Response Fund to respond to the Congolese influx. State/PRM is also in consultations with World Vision to provide health and education services in the Makpandu and Ezo sites once MSF-Spain discontinues its management of health services in these areas in July 2009. ¶16. State/PRM supports ICRC's work throughout Sudan, including its Southern Sudan operation. (Note: Unearmarked funding for ICRC Sudan in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 totaled USD 24 million. To date in FY 2009, State/PRM has contributed USD 8.85 million to ICRC's Sudan operation, which is largely Darfur-focused. End Note.) ICRC has responded to the DRC influx by providing protection for unaccompanied minors (UAM),including family tracing and reunification, and drilling boreholes for water in IDP areas. ICRC registered 90 UAM in Yambio and 25 in Yei and continues to work with ICRC in DRC on family tracing. ICRC provided food and lodging for 37 UAMs in Yambio at a facility run by the New Sudan Women's Federation. On the day State/PRM and USAID/OFDA officers visited Makpandu, ICRC was transferring some of this caseload to Makpandu settlement to live with foster families or on their own. Other UAMs remained in Yambio town with foster families. Several of the UAMs in Yambio County are former LRA abductees and have resulting mental health problems. KHARTOUM 00000660 004 OF 005 -------------- IDP RESPONSE -------------- ¶17. At the time of the USAID/OFDA and State/PRM site visits, relief agencies were still struggling to register and verify the IDP caseload and only minimal humanitarian assistance had reached the IDPs. IOM reports that Ezo, Andari, and Naandi currently hold the largest number of IDPs with a total of 14,342 IDPs in the three payams (Ezo - 5,770; Andari - 5,753; and Naandi - 2,819). IOM's preliminary assessment of the IDP areas indicated urgent needs in shelter, water, and health. Through discussions with local officials and organizations responding in the LRA-affected areas, USAID/OFDA and State/PRM officers concluded that the IDP response is currently ad-hoc and provision of basic services needs to be rapidly scaled-up to serve the needs of IDPs and host communities. In addition, the IDP response is off to a much slower start than would have been hoped for, with only minimal progress on humanitarian assistance provision visible after more than 5 months of displacement. (Note: Many of the organizations that are now responding to the current emergency only have development staff on the ground and have been slow to shift operational focus from ongoing development activities to respond to humanitarian needs. End Note.) ¶18. FOOD: According to the UN World Food Program (WFP) officer in Yambio, food had reached only 14,000 of the estimated 36,000 IDPs as of May 7, and WFP is facing challenges in getting food into some of the areas due to insecurity and the poor condition of the roads now that the rains have started. WFP has distributed three-month food rations to IDPs in Ezo and plans to do the same in Naandi and Andari areas. Many IDPs remain located in villages close to the border, which are inaccessible to aid agencies due to ongoing insecurity, and have not received food since December 2008. World Vision is WFP's primary food distribution partner in Western Equatoria. WFP recently signed a new agreement with World Vision to provide additional funding so that the organization can scale-up their emergency response capacity. WFP is also increasing the number of staff on the ground and opening a small office in Yambio, which will be co-located with the UN Mission in Sudan. ¶19. SHELTER and NFIs: According to IOM, one of the primary needs among the IDP population is emergency shelter and NFI kits, as IDPs fled their homes with only minimal household assets. IOM reports that the population requires 6,000 NFI kits that include soap, mosquito nets, a cooking set, blankets, sleeping mats, plastic sheeting, and water containers. IOM also estimates that 1,000 emergency shelters are urgently needed in the Ezo/Tambura area to assist vulnerable groups among the IDP population in weathering the rainy season. ¶20. HEALTH: During the USAID/OFDA and State/PRM officers' assessment in Western Equatoria, aid agencies reported that the GOSS MOH health system had all but collapsed due to the lack of salary payment. (Note: Lack of salary payment for the health sector is common throughout all ten Southern Sudan states and is a major barrier to the relief-to-development transition. End Note.) According to World Vision, the only paid health staff member in either Ezo or Tambura is the county health officer. Where health facilities exist, NGO staff will have to scale-up existing services with technical assistance, incentives to MOH staff, medicine and vaccine provision, and adequate oversight of treatment protocols. ¶21. WATER, SANITATION, AND HYGIENE (WASH): Both IOM and World Vision highlighted the urgent need for additional water points to serve the IDP and host population. World Vision estimates that 65 boreholes are functioning and 14 are non-functioning in Ezo County and 64 are functioning and ten are non-functioning in Tambura County. The majority of the water points are located in urban centers with few scattered outside the towns. In response to IDP and host community water needs in Ezo, IOM plans to establish three large water bladders in strategic locations in the Ezo/Tambura area. The water bladders will be accompanied by water purification systems, water distribution systems, livestock water facilities, and household water containers. In addition, IOM will set up 40 one cubic meter water storage tanks in areas with IDP concentrations where frequent refilling by water trucks is logistically feasible. Some IDP areas that are not accessible by road will be provided with water purification and filtration supplies. IOM will also dig 500 pit latrines in IDP areas and initiate hygiene awareness activities. ¶22. COORDINATION: Actors responding to IDP needs are not well KHARTOUM 00000660 005 OF 005 coordinated in Juba or in the affected states. In Southern Sudan, the primary coordinator is the UN RCSO office, which has humanitarian liaison staff i~ all stave catitals.0 OCHA sur0ortw`theQRCSNofkce!di`zdspo~d|osecibjs eearkeneurQtZoukkwzdQ s|cfr/-QhlQe5}t0H#L@7~`A`weakQkUYlzt"utg&RF`}nMhP.VaAC;Dwb Q4s]yC,(c0aKpQti_Q the UN is discussing the possible implementation of the UN cluster system. State/PRM and USAID/OFDA officers believe that strengthening coordination of humanitarian efforts is a top priority. ¶23. ADDITIONAL USG ASSISTANCE TO IDPS: In response to the IDP and affected host community needs in Western Equatoria, USAID/OFDA plans to provide USD 1.3 million to support IOM's humanitarian response in the LRA-affected areas through provision of emergency shelters, NFIs, and WASH services. In addition, USAID/OFDA is in consultation with World Vision on funding their emergency IDP response in the health, food security and agriculture, and livelihood sectors. USAID/OFDA is also exploring options to support improved humanitarian coordination for the LRA-affected areas through OCHA. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶24. While refugee settlement areas were slowly getting up to international standards by the time the team visited the area in May, the response to comprehensively address refugee needs had been ad-hoc and slow. This appears to be due largely to an assumption among UN agencies that the LRA-displaced populations would return to their areas of origin soon. Now, these same UN agencies are becoming increasingly aware that refugees will not return to DRC until, as one refugee leader in Lasu put it, "the LRA is finally terminated." (Note: Refugees in Makpandu claimed that they wanted to be repatriated to non LRA-affected areas of DRC, although this was in response to delayed food distribution. End Note.) UNHCR also has suffered from being under-funded and under-staffed. Its operation has been largely focused on the repatriation and reintegration of returning Sudanese IDPs and the agency had to reorient staff and funding towards the Congolese influx. ¶25. While it is difficult to predict accurately when IDPs and refugees will return home, relief staff believe that the current IDP and refugee caseload will continue to require services in areas of displacement for the coming 12 months. The primary factor influencing return will be security in home areas, which is unlikely to improve until the LRA problem is resolved. While the IDP response has been spotty, slow, and mired in difficult relations with local authorities to date, relief agencies are now scaling-up humanitarian interventions and gaining a more comprehensive picture of IDP locations, numbers, and profile. IOM's start-up in Ezo and Tambura area will significantly add to the humanitarian expertise and capacity to identify effectively and respond to IDP and host community needs. ASQUINO