Jan 4, 2017 - Map 1: Maban County refugee camp area, Upper Nile, South Sudan ..........................................3
Conflict and Tensions Between Communities Around Doro Camp, Maban County South Sudan Refugee Response January 2017
Contents Contents .................................................................................1 Summary ................................................................................2 List of maps .................................................................................................................2 List of figures ...............................................................................................................2 List of tables ................................................................................................................2 List of images ..............................................................................................................2 List of acronyms ..........................................................................................................2
Introduction ...........................................................................3 Previous assessments ...............................................................................................3 Current assessment ....................................................................................................4
Methodology ..........................................................................4 Qualitative data collection ...........................................................................................5 Quantitative data collection .........................................................................................6
Challenges and limitations ......................................................6 Security and conflict .............................................................8 General security situation ...........................................................................................9 Natural resource usage ..............................................................................9 Presence of arms ..........................................................................................9 Demographics of conflict .............................................................................9 Recent hotspots of conflict ........................................................................10 Unpredictability ...........................................................................................10 Host community ........................................................................................................13 IDPs ..........................................................................................................................15 Refugees ..................................................................................................................17
Relations and tensions .........................................................18
Host community - IDP relations .................................................................................18 Host community - refugee relations ...........................................................................18 Refugee - IDP relations ............................................................................................19
1
Relations overview ...................................................................................................20 Conflict, security and justice ......................................................................20 Access to livelihoods ..................................................................................20 Peacebuilding activities ..............................................................................21 Positive aspects .........................................................................................22
Recommendations and conclusion ..........................................24 Host community support ..........................................................................................24 Arms control .............................................................................................................24 Coordinated peacebuilding efforts ............................................................................24 Conflict management skills ......................................................................................24 Enhanced communication mechanisms ..................................................................25 Youth inclusion and participation .............................................................................25 Political negotiations .................................................................................................25 Sustainable shelter materials ..................................................................................25
Annex I: Quantitative assessment tool .....................................26 Annex II: FGD questioning route ..............................................28 Annex III: Key informant tool ..................................................30 Annex IV: Maban County map, participatory mapping tool .......31 Images: © REACH Initiative (2016) About REACH Initiative REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: southsudan@reach-initiative. org or to our global office:
[email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.
List of maps
List of tables
Map 1: Maban County refugee camp area, Upper Nile, South Sudan ..........................................3
Table 1: Conflict assessments in Maban County ..........................................................................3
Map 2: Assessment sites in Maban County ..................................................................................5
Table 2: Focus group discussion locations and targets ................................................................5
Map 3: Quantitative survey coverage ...........................................................................................6 Map 4: Insecurity and conflict between Doro and Sudan ............................................................10 Map 5: Host community conflict and security ..............................................................................12 Map 6: IDP origins and conflict ....................................................................................................14 Map 7: Refugee conflict and security ..........................................................................................16
List of figures Figure 1: Wet season security incidents reported, % of respondents, by cultivation habits ..........9 Figure 2: Reported wet season security incidents by age ..........................................................10 Figure 3: Triggers of wet season security incidents reported by host community ..........................13 Figure 4: Average number of incidents reported, wet season, by community .............................15 Figure 5: Triggers of wet season security incidents reported by IDPs .........................................15 Figure 6: Triggers of wet season security incidents reported by refugees ..................................17 Figure 7: Reported relations between host community and IDPs ................................................18 Figure 8: Reported relations between host community and refugees ..........................................19 Figure 9: Reported benefits of refugee presence by host community .........................................19 Figure 10: Reported relations between IDPs and refugees ........................................................20 Figure 11: Wet season security incidents by distance to refugee camp, IDPs and host community ..21 Figure 12: Knowledge of peacebuilding activities .......................................................................21 Figure 13: Wet season security incidents by knowledge of peace initiatives ...............................22
List of images Image 1: Bee football camp, Doro Camp ......................................................................................8 Image 2: Cultivation and tree cutting area near Doro Camp .......................................................13 Image 3: Market within Doro Camp .............................................................................................17 Image 4: IDP community in Bonabowa .......................................................................................18
2
List of acronyms CRA
Commission for Refugee Affairs
DDG
Danish Demining Group
DRC
Danish Refugee Council
FGD
Focus Group Discussion
GoSS
Government of South Sudan
HDC
Humanitarian Development Consortium
HR
Human Resources
IDP
Internally Displaced Person
KI
Key Informant
KII
Key Informant Interview
NGO
Non-governmental Organization
ODK
Open Data Kit
SAF
Sudan Armed Forces
SGBV
Sexual and Gender Based Violence
SPLM-N
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement - North
SSP
South Sudan Pound
UNHCR
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
USD
United States Dollar
Introduction During the Sudan’s second civil war from 1983 to 2005, many communities from Sudan’s Blue Nile State, were displaced for almost two decades to Ethiopia, mostly settling around Langkwai. In 1990, attacks from armed actors again displaced these communities, leading them to eventually settle in Bonga, Ethiopia in 1993. Most only recently returned to Blue Nile through a voluntary repatriation programme begun in 2005. The same communities were largely displaced again when violence between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) in Sudan’s Kordofan State and Blue Nile State began in 2011. To date, over 200,000 refugees have crossed the border into South Sudan, with over 130,000 housed in the four refugee camps established in Maban County, Upper Nile state: Doro, Gendrassa, Kaya and Yusif Batil.1 A number of humanitarian agencies have been operational in the camps under the coordination of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Mabanese host community also shared exile in Ethiopia in the earlys 90’s with some of the refugee communities currently living in Doro. This shared displacement together with a historical friendship that included trade and intermarriage, made that Mabanese host communities welcomed refugeees from Doro camp when they first arrived in Maban. However, as the displacement and presence of the refugees in Maban continued, the host 3
community, which suffers from similar levels of vulnerability and faces increased competition over resources, became frustrated with the perceived negative impact of the presence of refugees. Host communities did hardly perceive benefits, especially as the early phases of the response focused solely on refugees with no initial assistance provided to the already vulnerable host community.2 Consequently, tensions between the host community and refugees became tense, resulting in, at the time of assessment, between 50 and 90 people being killed due to conflict between these communities in Maban. Adding further complexity to the situation, internally displaced persons (IDPs) have been moving to the area around the four refugee camps since the onset of the South Sudan Crisis in December 2013. Although many wish to return to their homes, protracted conflict in their areas of origin has prevented them to do so, with over 13,000 registered in the area by UNHCR by May 2015, the latest bioregistration.3 IDPs typically reside within or near host community settlements in informal or makeshift shelters. The presence of this population puts an even greater strain on resources and services around the area, and adds further layers of complexity and potential instability to the already tense and complicated situation. IDPs surrounding Doro Camp are found in and around host community villages on the eastern and western sides of the camp, with IDPs from Maban County often staying with relatives. The main concentrations of IDPs in the area at
Map 1: Maban County refugee camp area, Upper Nile, South Sudan Marshland Refugee camp
Blue Nile State
Sudan
River
Camp area
Road
Kaya
Village
Offra
Ethiopia Central African Republic Kujuria
Juba
! [
Democratic Republic of Congo
Uganda
Kenya
R. Tombak Bewo
Doro Gendrassa Gendrassa Peikaji West
Yusif Yusif Batil
Yusif Batil Village
Gendrassa Village
Dollo Peikaji East
Kongo Mamur
Hai-Naivasha Benchul
Godan 1
Ortiji Janjitin
Lungnyang
Thomaji
Gulawiny
Gasmalla
Bunj Town b R . Ya us
Kongo Farajala
Yawaji Godan 2 Tuk-checha
Damajin
Dangaji
Buta Dangaji (FFS)
the time of data collection were near Benchul west of Doro Camp, and to the east near Lungnyang and within Ortiji and Gasmalla.
Previous assessments The first assessment on conflict and tensions in Maban was conducted by Danish Demining Group (DDG) in 2012.4 DDG found that competition over livelihoods opportunities, such as livestock grazing, natural resource usage and access to employment were creating tensions and conflict between refugees and the host community. Refugee numbers swelled in the intervening years,
1. As of November 2016, latest data available on the UNHCR Information Sharing Portal 2. Upper Nile Refugee Crisis: Avoiding past mistakes in the coming year, Oxfam, 2012. 3. LWR/LWF Needs Assessment: Maban County, Upper Nile State, South Sudan, August 2015.
0
1
2
3
6
Kms
and the lack of a political solution to the crisis in South Kordofan and Blue Nile meant that the refugees would likely remain in South Sudan for the foreseeable future. Further assessments were needed to better inform humanitarian programming focused on conflict reduction and to ensure that all programming within Maban County was conflict sensitive. To fill information gaps, REACH, supported by UNHCR, conducted a pilot conflict assessment in Maban County in November and December 2015. REACH provided an analysis of dynamics in the areas surrounding Gendrassa Camp, highlighting locations of conflict and
4. Displacement, Disharmony and Disillusion – Understanding Host-Refugee Tensions in Maban County, South Sudan, DDG, 2012.
overlapping use of natural resources between the host community and refugees, while also pinpointing other drivers of tensions.5 Access to land and shared usage of natural resources were found to be the primary drivers of conflict between communities around Gendrassa Camp. With food rations lowered in 2015 by 30% due to funding decreases, and high malnutrition rates found throughout both host community and refugee communities, it was thought unlikely that the over-exploitation of natural resources as a coping mechanism will stop.6 Thus, the REACH assessment recommended that clear land demarcation takes place, with community meetings held to ensure that refugees and host community alike were aware of the location of agricultural land assigned to the refugees. Improved security and a strengthened rule of law in Maban County were also posed as recommended solutions. The Danish Refugee Council (DRC) and Forcier Consulting conducted another assessment of conflicts and tensions in March 2016.7 Using focus group discussions (FGDs), the study focused on host communities and refugees surrounding all four camps of Maban County. Building upon and confirming the importance of natural resources as a trigger of conflict, DRC went further in analysing the underlying tensions behind the conflict. Lack of access to livelihoods, poor law enforcement, militarisation and criminality, and top-down discourses on relations between 4
communities were all identified as possible drivers of tension. Reported perceptions of the host community by refugees showed an improvement of relations from 2015. Host communities, on the other hand, reported little to no positive change and expressed their fears of further conflict. The study also highlighted positive relations between refugee and host communities, noting common interactions at marketplaces, establishment of friendships between members of the communities, and the presence of intermarriage between refugees and host community members. The DRC assessment concluded with recommendations focused on the equitable distribution of services and benefits to bolster host community’s livelihoods, demilitarisation, and improvement of peace dialogues and initiatives, with the end goal of community integration in mind. In June 2016, REACH began data collection on a follow-up to the 2015 assessment, looking at conflict and tensions in Gendrassa and Yusif Batil Camps over the 2016 dry season, and expanding the scope of data collection to incorporate IDPs into the analysis. Echoing much of the findings of DRC, contested
access to livelihoods including access to land and natural resources, poor law enforcement and presence of arms, were identified as some of the key drivers of both conflict and tensions between the communities.8 The report recommended that the work of peace committees in Maban County continues, while expanding to include IDPs. A combination of programmes to support host community livelihoods were also recommended, particularly through employment and wage considerations, and an expansion of provisions of services to the community.
Current assessment In order to complement previous 2016 REACH and DRC assessments conducted in Gendrassa and Batil camps, REACH, in partnership with UNHCR, conducted an assessment to further the understanding of tensions and disputes between refugees, host and IDP communities around Doro camp. Data collection for this research was conducted from October to December 2016, and focused on two separate yet related topics: security and conflict, and relations and tensions. Looking at
these separately enabled REACH to pinpoint triggers of conflict and security threats, while also analysing the underlying tensions that make these conflicts more likely and hinder peacebuilding programmes. Following the previous REACH assessment, this study also includes dynamics related to the growing IDP population in Maban County and research on conflict focused on the 2016 wet season around Doro Camp, along with assessing community relations throughout 2016. The end goal of the study is to provide concrete, actionable information and recommendations for peacebuilding initiatives and mainstreaming of conflict sensitive programming in the area. The report begins with a detailed presentation of the methodology used, followed by the key findings organized in the following sections: 1. Security and conflict, 2. Relations and tensions, and 3. Recommendations and conclusion.
Methodology This study implemented a mixed methodology of data collection in order to map relations, tensions and conflict amongst host community, IDPs and refugees.
Table 1: Conflict assessments in Maban County
Assessment DDG REACH DRC REACH
Date 2012 2015 2016 2016
Area of coverage All 4 camps and host community Gendrassa Camp and host community All 4 camps and host community Gendrassa and Yusif Batil Camps, host community, and IDPs
5. Mapping of Tensions and Disputes Between Refugees and Host Community in Gendrassa, Maban, REACH, 2015. 6. LWR/LWF Needs Assessment: Maban County, Upper Nile State, South Sudan, August 2015. 7. Conflict and Cohesion in Maban: Towards Positive Refugee/Host Community Relations,
Methodology Desktop research, FGDs, and actor interviews FGDs, participatory mapping, and actor interviews FGDs and actor interviews FGDs, participatory mapping, KIIs, and quantitative survey
DRC, 2016. 8. Conflict and Tensions Between Communities Around Gendrassa and Yusif Batil Camps, Maban County, REACH, 2016.
Qualitative data collection A total of 17 FGDs and participatory mapping sessions were conducted between 24 October and 17 December 2016, reaching 163 participants in total. The questioning route, developed by REACH and incorporating partner feedback and recommendations, is available in Annex II. FGDs were sampled from a large number of locations in the area. Three FGDs were conducted in each zone of the camp, ensuring a wide sampling of refugee communities, along with a large sampling of communities surrounding the camps. Male youth, women, and sheikhs/elders were selected to participate in the FGDs in order to provide a broad understanding of the current situation. Table 2 identifies the composition, location and number of FGDs. Participatory mapping was a component of FGDs and was conducted to provide spatial reference to the information provided by participants. This exercise used a map of the four camps and local community villages in this area of Maban County, which was used to georeference participant responses. The map used for participatory mapping is available in Annex IV. Spatial information collected in these sessions was digitized using ArcGIS9, then analysed to identify common themes and relationships with spatial data collected through the quantitative surveys. This analysis was used to produce the maps presented later in this report. 5
Narrative information collected during the FGDs has been used throughout this report to provide more explicit contextual detail not captured through the mapping exercises.
Map 2: Assessment sites in Maban County
Six key informant interviews (KIIs) targeting Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) staff, agency staff, local authorities and other stakeholders in the area were used to complement FGDs. The KII guide is available in Annex III.
Focus group discussion
Quantitative surveys Nilla
R. Tombak
Quantitative data collection A quantitative questionnaire was run, covering 1,132 host community members, 243 IDPs and 1,050 refugees, using smartphones and the Open Data Kit survey software. The full coverage of the quantitative survey can be seen on Map 3. Sampling was done using available population data, such as household registration data for the host community, camp populations and IDP biometric registration counts. The population numbers were used to collect proportional random samples in the villages around Doro Camp. For each village, the enumerator team would randomly select households by traveling in an assigned direction from the centre of the village and collecting data from every second household. This helped achieve a simple random sample, with data being representative to the camp level for refugees and representative of the broad host community and IDP populations.
9. ArcGIS is a geographic information system used to manage, analyse and present spatial information.
Dalija
Doro Camp Zone B Zone A
Zone C Koma
Robangoye
Dollo I
Lungiji
Ortiji Gasmallah
Gulawini
Bunj Town Bonabowa R. Yabus
Ngaganji
R. Ya bu
s
Table 2: Focus group discussion locations and targets
Map 3: Quantitative survey coverage
Population Refugees Refugees Refugees IDPs IDPs Host community
Group Male youth; sheikhs/elders; women Male youth; sheikhs/elders; women Male youth; sheikhs/elders; women Sheikhs/men; women Male youth; sheikhs Sheikhs/men; women
Location Doro Camp, Zone A Doro Camp, Zone B Doro Camp, Zone C Bonabowa Gasmalla Ortiji
Host community
Sheikhs/men; women
Lungiji
Sampling was conducted with a 95% of confidence level and 5% margin of error. Before the analysis, the data was first cleaned and aggregated by REACH. Using ArcGIS, spatial data was then analysed along with the data digitized from the FGDs to create a picture of conflict and tensions in Maban, with the rest of the quantitative analysis being performed through R and graphically displayed through the ggplot2 package.
Challenges and limitations REACH spent a total of three months in Maban, managing the data collection through quantitative and qualitative tools. Due to logistical difficulties, IDP communities were undersampled in comparison to the refugee communities, as were host community areas further from the camp area. Some of the data collection fell within the dry season. To ensure that respondents 6
# of FGDs 3 3 3 2 2 2
Quantitative survey location and coverage by population with number of interviewees per area Nilla
HC: 103
2
HC: 121
answered about security concerns during the 2016 wet season, the training of enumerators emphasized the study’s focus on wet season security, while questions in the quantitative tool focused on wet season security repeated the phrase “over the wet season” for further emphasis. The FGD questioning route was similarly modified.
R. Tombak
Dalija
Refugees: 316
Refugees: 269
These may contribute to a skew in the data due to sampling errors. However, through crosschecking of quantitative results against the FGD data collected, REACH expresses confidence in the quality of data presented.
Refugees: 465
Doro Camp Zone B
While the study attempts to discuss broader themes across Maban County, REACH acknowledges the limitations of the data collected and the possibility that conclusions would no longer hold in areas near Gendrassa, Kaya and Yusif Batil Camps, given the different dynamics and communities involved at the moment of the assessment in Doro camp.
Zone A
IDPs: 109 Zone C
HC: 210
Koma
HC: 64 HC: 25
Robangoye
Dollo
Lungiji
HC: 159
Ortiji Gasmallah
Gulawini Ngaganji
HC: 77
Bunj Town
HC: 233 Bonabowa R. Yabus
HC: 94 IDPs: 134
HC: 46
R. Ya bu
s
A female refugee participated as FGD translator within Doro Camp. However, the host community and IDP FGD translator was male, and no researchers were specially trained on sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) research. This likely prohibited women FGDs, particularly from the host community and IDPs, from sharing information on SGBV, which represents an important protection concern in Maban County. For more information on the unique problems presented by SGBV and its prevalence in Maban County, DRC has conducted multiple studies on the issue,10 including one study in 2015.11
7
10. Sexual and gender-based violence assessment, Jammam Refugee Camp, DRC, September 2012; Sexual and gender-based violence assessment, Doro Refugee Camp, DRC, July 2012; Sexual and gender-based violence assessment, Yusif Batil Refugee Camp, DRC, November 2012; Understanding Sexual and Gender Based Violence in a Context of Forced Displacement, Male Disempowerment, and Refugee-Host Tensions,
Upper Nile State, Maban County, DRC, May 2014. 11. Gender Based Violence Research on Sexual Assault: Maban County, South Sudan, DRC, August 2015
Security and conflict The daily security of residents of Maban County has reportedly been increasingly poor since the arrival of the refugees in 2012. By the end of 2015, conflict between host community and refugees had led to between 50 to 90 deaths, with an unknown number of IDPs killed.12 While 2015 was a year marked by intense conflict in Maban, especially around Gendrassa and Yusif Batil camps, the situation was reportedly relatively peaceful in and around Doro camp. Image 1: Bee football field, Doro Camp
Despite there did exist some tensions between communities in and around Doro Camp, many were caught by surprise in May 2016 when a football match for peaceful coexistence turned violent, sparking a week of clashes and conflict. This event was used as an important reference point in most FGDs and KIIs (see box on the right).
Doro Camp football match incident In late May 2016, UNHCR, the South Sudan Commission for Refugee Affairs (CRA) and the NGO Humanitiarian Development Consortium (HDC) hosted a football tournament between refugees and host community members, as part of their efforts to promote peaceful coexistence within Maban County.13 Initially, the idea was to have mixed teams of refugees and host community, however, there was little follow-up to ensure this occurred and thus most teams were composed predominantly of one community or another. In one of the final games, a referee apparently made a mistake, prompting anger from observers of the game at the Bee football field in Doro Camp. Reportedly instigated by intoxicated observers, violent clashes started. People began to throw stones around the field, and later in the evening people brought guns and other types of weapons to the fights. Following these incidents, one refugee was severely injured and brought to Bunj hospital, dying later that evening from his injuries. According to FGD refugee participants, the refugee was injured by law enforcement authorities that entered the camp after the event to calm the situation. When the body was brought back to the camp, it was publicly displayed to the community, further outraging the refugees. The following day, refugees reportedly attacked and burnt homes in host communities to the southeast of Doro Camp, leaving two host community members dead. Scores of host community and refugees were injured in clashes on that day and following ones. Many KIs believed that improper planning of the football matches was partially responsible for the incidents, as community leaders were not made aware of the event and were not present to de-escalate the situation as it worsened. “The game, as many other activities, were decided and organized from the top and didn’t adequately involve the leaders from the communities who could have controlled better the incidents once they started.” - Local authority, KII14 Following these incidents, many believe that the peaceful existence around Doro Camp changed. Host communities reportedly blocked roads and brought women and children to villages further from the camp, while refugees also sent women and children nearer to Ethiopia, with most men remaining to fight. Both groups expressed that the events at and following the football match created a negative security situation around the camp.
8
12. Conflict and Cohesion in Maban: Towards Positive Refugee/Host Community Relations, DRC, 2016. 13. Ibid 14. Quote from KII with local authority, 16 December 2016.
General security situation FGDs and KIIs conducted around Doro Camp concurred that the security situation around the camp has significantly deterioriated since the events in May and June 2016. Many of these findings echo what was found in Gendrassa and Yusif Batil Camps, yet the security situation in Doro Camp shows significantly
deteriorated relations between communities and much more inter-communal tensions.
Natural resource usage As highlighted in previous assessments, the usage of shared natural resources constitutes a major trigger for conflict, and negatively impacts livelihoods and community relations.
Figure 1: Wet season security incidents reported, % of respondents, by cultivation habits
43%
32%
50%
Number of security incidents
15% 10%
0 14%
8% 39%
39%
9%
1
34%
2 3 or more
7%
Does not cultivate
Cultivates inside the camp
Collecting wood was the most commonly reported single instigator of conflict, likely due to its important use in shelter construction, as firewood and as charcoal by all communities in Maban County. At the same time, usage of land for food (cultivation, livestock grazing and foraging) accounted for many conflict triggers according to the quantitative survey. Host communities and IDPs reported that they feared going to remote areas to collect food, chop wood or perform other livelihoods activities. With all three communities continuing to share these resources, the likelihood of further conflict arising due to these tensions is high. While refugees reported in FGDs that they are often afraid to leave the camp in order to cultivate, 50% of respondents to the survey reported cultivating outside the camp. A land agreement between the host community, and Yusif Batil and Gendrassa refugees provided refugees with a piece of land to cultivate and use without fear of reprisals15. As no such agreement reportedly exists in Doro, refugees often resort to using land without permission, which increases the risk of conflict. While it is difficult to ascertain how much the amount of resource sharing contributes to the current conflict, tensions and conflict are unlikely to stop if high levels of resource sharing continue.
Cultivates outside the camp
Refugee cultivation habit 9
15. Conflict and Tensions Between Communities Around Gendrassa and Yusif Batil Camps, Maban County, REACH, 2016. 16. Quote from a KII with NGO staff, 5 December, 2016.
Presence of arms The large number of arms within Doro Camp and the surrounding host communities have likely contributed to the current levels of conflict. While not necessarily making an incident more likely, the presence of arms increases the likelihood that incidents will be lethal. Initiatives to ensure civilian character of the refugee camps in Maban were undertaken in late 2015 - early 2016, according to KIIs. However, these efforts have faced some challenges due the lack of formal agreements and bilateral disarmaments processes. “The presence of arms in the camps and host communities has been the source of tension between both. If they have guns, they will use them, so the solution is not having guns and doing more training and disarmament activities with both communities.” - NGO staff, KII16
Demographics of conflict Women participants in FGDs from all three communities emphasized that they are often victims of violence and harassment, while men and male youth are usually the instigators of conflict. Women across the communities reported having overall good relations with each other.
“With the refugee women, we have good relationship. Some of them even come to the community and we have tea or coffee together. The problem is usually between the men.” - Host community woman, Lungiji17 Looking at Figure 2, there appears to be little relation between age and the number of security incidents experienced. However, respondents under the age of 40 were likely to experience a slightly higher number of security incidents in the 2016 wet season than older respondents. In addition, looking
at the difference between male and female respondents, men tended to experience slightly higher numbers of incidents than women did. These mirror reports from FGDs in which male youth were described as the primary instigators of conflict.
and these youth are not listening. We can’t stop youth from doing certain things.”
As a result, KIIs indicated that without proper incorporation of youth into peace programming, it will be difficult to effectively reduce the levels of conflict within Maban.
Since the late May-June incidents, conflict has been flaring up in the area around Doro Camp between refugees and host communities. In October, heavy fighting causing displacements and tensions occurred in Shata, displacing the host community there towards Doro Camp. During FGDs, host community members
“Agencies are making efforts for the peace, but they are not integrating enough the youth
Figure 2: Number of wet season security incidents reported18
- Refugee sheikh, Doro Camp Zone A19
Recent hotspots of conflict
reported June incidents might have contributed to these events, due to deterioriating relations after the conflict. While not all KIs were convinced of the direct connection between the two events, many did draw a connection between the two. Some KIs emphasized the role that misinformation and rumours play in exacerbating conflict, recounting how Mabanese host communities attacked people from Blue Nile shortly following the football match.
Map 4: Insecurity and conflict between Doro and Sudan n da an Su Sud uth
So
8
Chali
# of security incidents
0
2
4
8
Kms
R. Tombak
Dangerous area
6
Men were more likely to report more security incidents
Chali in Sudan and the approaching road, were mentioned multiple times in FGDs by members of the host community as areas they no longer visit. While far from the camp and the host community areas interviewed, there was reportedly fear from the host community on traveling to these areas.
Sudanese border Settlement
Female Male
4
The road to Shata and Yabus, and the areas surrounding the villages, have become hotspots of conflict. Mabanese from Shata have been displaced towards Doro Camp, and host community members reported fearing traveling down the road to these areas due to the frequent threat of conflict. Refugees, who frequently travel between Yabus and Doro, reported incidents of host community members killing refugees they find along the road.
2
Sudan dan South Su
0 20
40
60
R. Ya bus
Age of respondent
10
17. Quote from an FGD with host community women from Lungiji on 1 December 2016. 18. A jittered scatterplot separates overlapping points by randomly distributing them vertically. Y-axis data are integer values ranging from 0 to 9, so all responses around each integer are actually the integer value itself, rather than a decimal value. A LOESS curve plotting age of the respondent against number of security incidents has been added to the
R. Yabus
Shata
graph. A LOESS (local regression) curve is a method used to produce a smooth line through a scatter plot to visualize relationships between variables and their trends. A curve is plotted for both male and female data. 19. Quote from a sheik refugee from Doro camp zone A
Yabus
Sudan Ethiop ia
Doro
“Information passes very fast and many times rumours can increase the problem, despite the fact that people don’t know why the problem is happening.” - Camp authority, KII20 The October clashes in Shata did not extend near to Doro Camp, but still created fear of traveling along roads heading towards the Sudanese border. Both host community and refugees expressed these fears of movement around Shata during FGDs, although the security situation around Doro Camp was tense yet stable.
Unpredictability The security situation across Maban is reportedly fluid and unpredictable, and while the security situation may appear calm at times, it is still necessary to address the underlying tensions between communities, and prepare for change at any time. The outbreak of conflict over Christmas (see text box on the right) highlighted the volatile security situation currently surrounding Doro camp area. Up until the May football match, in fact, Doro Camp was viewed as a model of refugee integration with the host community, and it was recommended in previous conflict assessments that the other three camps take cues from Doro in order for refugees to better integrate with surrounding host communities.21 Similarly, it was not expected that the situation around Yusif Batil and Gendrassa Camps would so suddenly improve in 2016 in relation 11
to 2015. “People have started to forget the episodes from June, but each time a small incident happens, the tensions escalate very quickly. Doro needs a lot of attention right now.” - NGO staff, KII22
December conflict around Doro Camp On the afternoon of 25 December, gunfire was exchanged between host communities and refugees, starting around the Doro airstrip. On the 26, the fighting intensified, and lasted until the 28, resulting in 17 host community members and around 13 refugees killed and many more injured.23 During and after the clashes, humanitarian operations were suspended across Maban, and movement of UN/ NGOs was restricted, although by mid-January most operations had resumed. As a consequence of the clashes, around 10,000 to 20,000 refugees inside Doro were displaced to other areas of the camp. Many of them settled around the secondary distribution site and the youth centre, and in the north of Jamur primary school. In the area surrounding the airstrip, houses were destroyed or burned, displacing many residents. This area was considered unsafe by refugees at the time of writing, with the dismantling of shelters in the area frequently reported.24 Numerous people have been using schools inside the camp (such as Samari and Balila schools) as shelters, along with the secondary distribution site and surrounding areas. Doro market was looted and closed as of the 10 January. In addition, a number of markets reportedly owned by Sudanese traders in the host community Bunj market were attacked and looted. Major displacements in host communities occurred around the south of the Yabus River (Doro community) and Hai Shifta (Tuweji community), with over 8,000 registered initially by NGOs. There were several other locations from where people have been displaced such as Benchul, Bonabowa, and areas around Bankuman School and Hai Khartoum, however most of the displaced from these locations either moved within Bunj or moved to the Yabus River area or Hai Shifta.25 The communities have grouped together by area of origin, with the Doro community displacing to south of the Yabus River under trees and some reportedly also accommodated temporarily in Bunj Town with relatives and friends. The communities from Tuweji have congregated around Hai Shifta. Those displaced reported that their livestock and properties were looted and shelters were burned with all of their belongings inside.26 By the end of January, some communities were returning home. While the circumstances of the original incident on the 25 are still unclear, an investigative committee chaired by the deputy state governor has been formed in early January, by initiative of the state governor, to minimize the crisis and understand the root causes of the conflict. This commission has been holding meetings with refugee leaders and the host community to find a pathway to peace. At the time of writing, the situation remained tense but calm on both sides.
20. Quote from a KII with camp authority on December 15th, 2016. 21. Conflict and Cohesion in Maban: Towards Positive Refugee/HC Relations, DRC, 2016. 22. Quote from a KII with NGO staff on December 5th, 2016. 23. Initial estimates from local and refugee authorities. 24. DRC Rapid Assessment in Doro, January 4th, 2017.
25. UNHCR, WFP, HDC, RRC Rapid Needs/Protection Assessment, January 6th, 2017. 26. Ibid.
Map 5: Host community reported conflict and perceptions of security
Average number of security incidents over the wet season; host communityXX 1 and under 1.001 - 2 2.001 - 3
Nilla
Over 3
R. Tombak
Dalija
Since the incidents in May and June, many host community members reported in FGDs that children have stopped going to schools inside the camp due to fears for their personal security. A reported lack of other schools nearby meant that few children were reported to be attending school.
Zone B Zone A
Women in Ortiji reported freedom of movement and safety when going to cut trees. Despite the security situation, their positive relationship with refugee women means they will often jointly travel together to collect firewood.
Zone C
Ortiji Dollo I Lungiji Robangoye
Ngaganji
Gulawini Bunj Town abus R. Y
Communities to the south/southeast edge of the camp reported incidents of conflict surrounding livestock theft and attacks in the bush by refugees.
R. Yabus
12
27. Average within the map refers to an average of respondents’ answers surveyed within the unit area. The unit area is calculated as 300 by 300 meter squares of areas covered by the survey. The average number of security incidents reported by respondents within the unit area is presented.
Gasmalla R. Ya bu
s
Host community Despite some security incidents reported by some host community members southwest of Doro Camp during the quantitative survey, during FGDs, many reported they felt the security situation was stable around that area. While they reported fears of traveling to areas to the east of Doro Camp, nearer to the Sudan border (as reported during FGDs), they felt safe in their commmunities and even reported using the two markets within the camp. The reported incidents with refugees, such as livestock theft, were often resolved through informal meetings between the sheiks from both communities. These negotiations could
have contributed to the reported impression of a stable security situation around the area by the host communities during FGDs, despite the specific incidents. “One year ago, some refugees stole some goats from our community. When that occurred, our sheikh went to talk with them and then they gave the goats back.” - Host community woman, Dolo II28 However, the story told by communities on the southeast side of the camp, Lungiji and Gasmalla, differed significantly. Many incidents of livestock theft or attacks in the bush were reported, and host community
Image 2: Cultivation and tree cutting area near Doro Camp
members openly talked of a poor security situation in the community. In FGDs across the host communities, men and women emphasized that the football competition in May and following events became a turning point in the security situation in the area. Although they recognized the incidents at the match were started by a small minority of people, they believed that those incidents led to or influenced other ones throughout the year. Rather than mentioning one cause for a security threat, many participants believed the conflict that started at the football competition has extended to a broader conflict between the Mabanese host community and refugees, including those further from the camp. “Refugees don’t respect host communities at all and it has caused a lot of problems in the last months between us. All started with a football competition between the Mabanese and the refugees. That incident caused other incidents, such as the one recently occurred in Shata.”
Figure 3: Triggers of wet season security incidents reported by host community
General theft
27%
Cutting trees
19%
Foraging
15%
Grazing livestock
12%
Cultivating
7%
Buying/selling charcoal
6%
Collecting water
5%
Buying/selling in a market
3%
General argument
1%
- Host community man, Lungiji29 In Shata, between Doro Camp and the eastern Sudanese border, large fighting between the Sudanese and Mabanese host communities, displaced host communities and inflamed tensions in October. While KIs acknowledged there is no direct link between the football events and conflict in Shata, they affirmed that the previously peaceful camp has become a hotspot for conflict. Many host community members were temporarily displaced, and tensions have repeatedly arose in different 13
28. Quote from an FGD with host community women from Dolo II on 9 December 9 2016. 29. Quote from an FGD with host community men from Lungiji on 2 December 2016.
Map 6: Reported origins of assessed IDPs and perceptions of security 0
2
4
8
Kms
Following livestock theft, armed violence and the burning of homes reportedly by Sudanese, Mabanese people in Shata came to Gasmalla in late 2016. Although members of the community acknowledged the perpetrators were not all refugees, relations with the refugees are very strained and they fear further insecurity.
IDP village of residence IDP village of origin Displacement route IDPs in Bonabowa are not allowed to use land for cultivation, cut grass for shelter construction, or cut trees. The host community initially agreed to allow them to remain for six months, but continued fighting in Leka and the arrival of new IDPs has put pressure on this agreement and the community.
Doro
Koma Ortiji s R. Yabu
Bonabowa
Gasmalla Shata To Koma and Ortiji
s R . Yabu
SUDAN Leka MABAN COUNTY
Koma residents from Dajo were displaced to Maban following conflict between armed actors. IDPs in Koma and Ortiji reported good relations with both host community and refugees, and perceived themselves to be outside of the conflict between the two communities.
LONGOCHUK COUNTY Dajo
From Dajo 14
R . Daga
IDPs Cultivation was reported by the assessed IDP communities as the main trigger for security incidents during the wet season (Figure 5). Some other livelihoods restrictions, such as the collection of firewood or grass for shelter construction were reported by Koma IDP communities in Ortiji and Mabanese IDPs displaced around Doro Camp. IDPs in Bonabowa experienced similar land restrictions, and robbery and harassment were also reported in the community. Despite all of this, in FGDs, respondents indicated that there had been no violent incidents between IDPs and the host community. Verbal harrassment of community members and livelihoods restrictions were the biggest consequences of the issues these communities reportedly had with the host community. “We go to all the markets (Doro, Bunj, Darfur, Freedom), we feel safe. We don’t have any problem when we go collect firewood. However, the Mabanese have warned us several times to collect only dry wood and
don’t cut the trees around, this is why we don’t feel very comfortable going to certain zones” - IDP woman, Ortiji30
Host community
15
0.96
22%
Foraging
18%
General theft
18%
Cutting trees
14%
Grazing livestock
7%
Buying/selling charcoal
5%
Collecting water
4%
1.90
General argument
1%
Refugees
Buying/selling in a market
1%
Similar to the host community, livestock theft and physical attacks comprised the majority of incidents reported by IDPs in FGDs. However, IDPs who were displaced from within Maban, such as from Leka and Shata and those displaced from outside Maban, such as Koma IDPs from Longochuk County, had different reports on the current security situation (Map 5). IDP respondents from Koma, for instance, reported that their security situation was relatively stable and they have not experienced any major incidents with the host community or refugees. The conflict with refugees was much more prevalent in FGDs with IDP communities in Bonabowa and Gasmalla. In particular, Mabanese IDPs in Gasmalla, displaced by fighting in Shata, reported high levels of conflict with refugees. As shown in Figure 4, Mabanese communities in Gasmalla reported
Koma IDPs
2.01 Gasmalla IDPs
Figure 5: Triggers of wet season security incidents reported by IDPs
Cultivating
Figure 4: Average number of incidents reported, by community
1.98
similar numbers of incidents as the host community and refugees, but Koma groups reported significantly fewer incidents.
30. Quote from an FGD with IDP women from Ortiji on 1 December 2016. 31. Ibid.
Assessed IDP communities, including those less affected by the conflict like the Koma IDPs, acknowledged that the security situation was worsening due to the conflict between Mabanese and refugees, although Mabanese IDP communities were obviously more impacted by the conflict. “Last month there was an incident between the Mabanese and the refugees, but we were safe because we are not Mabanese. We don’t have any problem with the refugees, and we have good relationships with the Mabanese and the refugees. We speak a lot with women from both sides.” - IDP woman, Ortiji31
Map 7: Refugee reported conflict and perceptions of security
Average number of security incidents in the wet season; refugees 1 and under 1.001 - 2
Women reported fears of going outside of the camp to collect firewood or other materials used for cooking or shelter construction. Instead, they resorted to buy these items in the market despite their high cost.
2.001 - 3 Over 3 Zone B
Zone C
Zone A
Bunj Town R
R. Yabus
16
us . Yab
Refugees reported many incidents of host community members stealing from them in shared markets or on the road from Bunj. The use of markets inside the camp has been reducing these incidents lately.
Several incidents involving law enforcement authorities were reported. A refugee reportedly died following one incident after the football match.
R. Ya bu
s
Refugees Over the 2016 wet season, and particularly following the football match and ensuing incidents, refugees reported a worsening of their security situation. Various types of land use were reported by the refugees as the primary causes of conflict, mainly cutting trees (Figure 6). Many refugees found it also difficult to plant near Doro camp due to conflict in the areas surrounding the camp. Participants in FGDs agreed that insecurity related to land use started when they began to look for land for cultivation or to collect firewood or charcoal. Red flags or white marks were reportedly found on trees Image 3: Market within Doro Camp
around Doro, warning them not to cross that area or not to cultivate there. They assumed host community members had placed them. “They have been putting red cloth in our gardens to demark zones where we can’t cultivate all around outside the camp and white mark on the trees inside the camp. They are not allowing us to harvest what we cultivated. We were the ones that cleaned the place, plant everything, but then host communities are taking everything.” - Refugee woman, Doro Camp Zone A
32
One of the primary security threats refugee women reportedly experienced were attacks when they are cutting trees to collect firewood. Several participants reported that members from host communities took axes from them or their relatives, and sometimes even beat the refugees. Women from Doro reported severe harassment and stressed that they feared leaving the camp to collect firewood. General insecurity in areas of cultivation or firewood collection were reported in FGDs to be worse than before the 2016 wet season. Reportedly due to harassment of women and theft of items at host community markets, new markets “Darfur” and “Freedom” were opened within Doro Camp. Refugees also reported in FGDs that since the incidents of June, refugees stopped attending secondary school in Bunj. KIs reported that the insecurity in Bunj, and the fear of being trapped in Bunj if another major event happens, caused fear for youth considering attending school. Lack of
17
adequate food was also identified as a reason for the reported decline in attendance, with respondents indicating that children were too hungry to learn. Sheikhs also reported several incidents involving law enforcement authorities. Some refugees reported having to pay to report a crime. Because of this, refugees reported having very little faith that the law enforcement mechanisms in Maban County will fairly treat their case. As a consequence, security incidents were rarely reported to the authorities. Most respondents reported that there were no arms within the camp. However, some FGDs participants acknowledged the issues that weapons in Maban have caused. Women reported that they did not feel safe in the camp when armed men were around, particularly if they were under the influence of alcohol. Similarly, sheiks from the refugees reported the arming of the surrounding host community has similarly stoked conflict. KIs reported that despite several disarmament campaigns held within the camp, and ongoing conversations with law enforcement authorities to instruct people to leave weapons in the check point before entering the camp, armed elements have been seen around the camp.
32. Quote from an FGD with refugee women from Doro Camp Zone A on 6 December 2016.
Figure 6: Triggers of wet season security incidents reported by refugees
Cutting trees
37%
Cultivating
18%
Collecting water
13%
Foraging
12%
Grazing livestock
7%
Buying/selling charcoal
5%
General theft
4%
Buying/selling in a market
2%
General argument
1%
Relations and tensions While trigger events, such as refugees chopping firewood on host community land or an unpopular call at a football match, can spark conflict and create insecurity, conflict is perpetuated by underlying tensions between the communities around Doro Camp. A multitude of factors exist that stress relations between communities and increase both the likelihood of conflict and the intensity of ongoing conflicts.
Host community - IDP relations Due to the dominant narrative of the conflict with refugees at the time of data collection, the host community were much less interested in discussing their relations or conflict with IDPs Image 4: IDP community in Bonabowa
during FGDs. Only when pressed would they acknowledge the group, and specifically report that their relationship with IDPs is a positive one, overwhelmingly confirmed by the data in Figure 7. IDPs, on the other hand, were more negative about their relations with the host community during FGDs. IDPs also reported negative attitudes towards them from the host community, contradicting what host community members themselves were saying. While some of the IDPs had an informal land agreement with host communities, many of the newly arrived IDPs (like in Gasmalla) had no access to land for cultivation or other livelihood uses. As they typically blamed host communities for this lack of access, this stressed relations between the two groups.
However, despite these problems, 82% of IDPs still reported their relations with the host community were okay or better.
Figure 7: Reported relations between host community and IDPs
Host community - refugee relations
Very good
48%
31%
Good
26%
25%
Okay
9%
26%
Poor
3%
9%
Very poor
3%
7%
HC relations with IDPs
IDP relations with HC
The relations between host community and refugees around Doro are highly strained. Due to the intensity of the conflict around the time of data collection, much of the discussion around host community - refugee relations was solely focused on conflict. Refugees expressed a lot of concern that relations were worsening and that the likelihood of further conflict was increasing. Host communities similarly mentioned the conflict between the two communities as a large issue affecting their relations. While it is difficult to untangle the correlation and causation between relations and conflict, it is likely that increased conflict negatively impacts relations and vice versa. If intense conflict continues into 2017, it will be extremely difficult to improve relations between the two communities. This conflict has reportedly impacted both communities’ ability to access services, lands, and other avenues to livelihoods improvement creating frustrations between the two groups. Host community members expressed frustration at their lack of ration cards, another issue generally centred around livelihoods. Although 10% of aid provisions in Maban County are supposed to be allocated
18
to the host community, this aid does not include monthly food distributions. Some KIs indicated that the focus has been solely on the refugees in the response, a situation that has contributed to make host community members feel left behind. Even refugees mentioned the lack of host community food distributions as a major factor stressing their relations. This, combined with the communities’ shared natural resources and the restrictions that conflict has on livelihoods access, put a lot of stress on the relations between host community and refugees.
- NGO staff, KII33
presence within Maban. Many host community members mentioned positive relations in the past tense, such as how they used to dance and drink together, along with previously shared relations through trade.
However, the nature of the FGDs, where multiple participants were gathered under the pretense of discussing current relations and security with other communities around Maban may have been less conducive to producing extensive discussion on positive aspects of and the benefits of refugees’
“We used to share a lot of things with the Mabanese. Very similar marks in the skin, traditional dances (tele), instruments like the rababa (chokan), the removal of the two lower teeth, and also the clothes are very similar. There were intermarriages with the Mabanese.”
Figure 8: Reported relations between host community and refugees
- Woman refugee, Doro Camp Zone C34
“Host communities feel a lot of pressure on their resources and feel refugees as a load and limitation for their livelihoods.”
Very good
6%
Good
13%
12%
Okay
12%
23%
Poor
Very poor
16%
52%
HC relations with refugees
19
12%
34%
18%
Refugee relations with HC
Upon the establishment of refugee camps in the area, roads and the airstrip were rehabilitated, numerous boreholes were drilled, education and health facilities constructed, and the presence of NGOs provided jobs and livelihoods opportunities not previously available. In 2012, DDG recommended that agencies focus on communications with host community to increase awareness surrounding the potential benefits of refugee presence. However, by 2016, the DRC report35 found host community members only mentioned the provision of iron sheets as a possible benefit, while previous REACH assessments found no positive aspects to the presence of refugees mentioned by the host community without direct prompting.44 In FGDs conducted this round, however, some host community members did report more
positive relations with refugees, particularly women, who often traveled in groups to collect firewood or share tea together. Refugees seconded this information, acknowledging that relations were developed between women from both communities, however, women belonging to certain communities were reportedly having more difficulties in this regard. “We have contact with women from the host communities. Some of them actually come inside the camp and we eat together. Those of us that live closer to the host communities frequently go there. Although, for some women the mobility is more restricted. We have less access to the host communities in comparison to other tribes.”
Figure 9: Reported benefits of refugee presence by host community
Construction of health facilities
51%
Construction of schools
25%
Construction of roads
5%
Food distributions
3%
Jobs
3%
Construction of bridges
2%
Nothing
9%
- Woman refugee, Doro Camp Zone B36 Host community members in Dollo I mentioned that their relations with refugees were relatively positive, as refugees frequently visited their village and they had a water sharing agreement with nearby refugees within the camp. When asked, host community members were able to frequently identify two specific benefits of the presence of refugees (Figure 9), neither raised during FGDs. And in the quantitative tool, trade was selected by 48% of respondents as a shared or positive aspects of relations with the other group, followed by religion, cultural traditions and ethnicity.
Refugee - IDP relations The relations between refugees and IDPs vary according to the origins of the IDPs. Those IDPs from Leka, displaced by attacks from armed groups to Bonobowa, reported poorer relations
33. Quote from a KII with NGO staff on December 5th, 2016. 36. Quote from an FGD with refugee women from Doro Camp Zone C on December 8th, 34. Quote from an FGD with refugee women from Doro Camp Zone B on December 7th, 2016. 2016. 35. Conflict and Cohesion in Maban: Towards Positive Refugee/Host Community Relations, DRC, 2016.
with the host community than with refugees, although as Mabanese their relationship with refugees is not necessarily positive.37 For those non-Mabanese communities in Koma and Ortiji, again displaced due to the general conflict, relations with Mabanese host community and refugees were reported to be very positive. On the contrary, those displaced from Shata to Gasmalla, reportedly by attacks from refugees, reported very poor relations with refugees. Although their relations with the Figure 10: Reported relations between IDPs and refugees
Very good
14%
15%
Good
9%
26%
Okay
23%
7%
Poor
31%
38%
Very poor
15%
14%
IDP relations with refugees
20
Refugee relations with IDPs
host community were also strained, they adopted similar rhetoric to that of the host community, frequently discussing conflict with the refugees. In general, IDP communities around Doro are themselves in a situation similar to refugees, receiving some aid, including food distributions, but lacking access to livelihoods. Although Mabanese IDPs feared conflict with the refugees due to the deterioriated relations between Mabanese host community and refugees, natural resource competition was not reported, as they don’t have a history of land use around Doro Camp. Refugees themselves rarely mentioned IDPs in FGDs, again, as the focus was heavily put onto their relations and conflict with the host community. However, the positive relations seen in Figure 10 reported by refugees is likely referencing the Koma IDPs, whereas the poor relations were likely primarily referencing Mabanese IDPs. The previous REACH assessment found refugees often confused Mabanese IDPs with the host community due to shared ethnicity.
Relations overview There are multiple underlying factors that impact community relations in Maban County. While some may be triggers of conflict as well, these factors contribute to the worsening of tensions or improvement of relations between communities. Poor relations increase the likelihood of conflict and that minor incidents
will escalate into larger conflict.
Conflict, security and justice Similar to the previous report on Yusif Batil and Gendrassa Camps, the impacts of conflict are strongly felt in community relations across Maban County. With the incidents in May and June following the football match, the violence in Shata, and the December insecurity around Doro Camp, even if the security situation stabilises, relations will likely remain strained for a while to come. Insecurity, brought in the eyes of the host community by refugees, is viewed as a massive detriment to their arrival in the area. In FGDs, host community members frequently blamed refugees for all minor incidents reported, such as livestock or agricultural thefts. Host community members living nearer to refugee camps would therefore be expected to report a higher number of security incidents, especially since refugees have reportedly restricted their movements from the camp. However little to no correlation between distance to the camp and number of security incidents reported could be found (Figure 11). Likely, this is due to blame being placed on refugees for minor incidents, often left unsolved or unpunished. Conflict is exarcebated by the low level of law enforcement in Maban. Although efforts have been made to reform enforcement mechanisms in the county, such as hiring a public prosecutor and a judge, the system is
37. South Sudan UNHCR Operational Update 15/2016, UNHCR, 2016. 38. Justice Systems in Maban Refugee Camps and Surrounding Communities: Need for Further Steps, DRC, 2016.
still greatly lacking.38 The police force lacks modern investigative capabilities which would enable them to identify perpetrators of security incidents. While traditional justice systems exist, a formal justice system and professionalised police force are needed if issues between refugees, host community and IDPs are to be properly addressed. At the moment, though, communities hold little faith or trust in this law enforcement system. Host community members are reportedly frustrated that there has yet to be any justice seen from the incidents in June, and reported that the court in Bunj has failed to solve the problems they have experienced with refugees. Refugees expressed even more distrust, due to several incidents reportedly involving law enforcement authorities. This distrust was further exacerbated by a feeling of unfair treatment, due to reports of extortion of money and lack of action to their complaints. “If we report these incidents to the police, sometimes the police will even make us pay money for that. This is why we are not reporting these cases to anybody, we are just leaving them like this.” - Woman refugee, Doro Camp Zone A39
Access to livelihoods Another main factor impacting relations between communities in Maban is access to livelihoods. In many ways, this has been the
39. Quote from an FGD with refugee women from Doro Camp Zone A on 6 December 2016.
primary separator of host community and refugees, as the two communities compete to use the limited natural resources available in Maban to cultivate, cook, and use as a coping mechanism. While many refugees had no prior relations with the Mabanese, some had been displaced in Ethiopia at the same time as the Mabanese and the two groups shared many cultural similarities. As discussed previously, they initially had good relations with the host community when they arrived in Maban, including intermarriages and many interactions. However, relations eventually
deterioriated, likely due to a lack of access to livelihood. Refugees in the FGDs specifically stated that tensions with the host communities began when they started to look for land to cultivate, collect firewood on, or use for any other reason. These same tensions are found between IDPs and host community, as IDPs put similar strains on the shared resources. While IDPs are smaller in number, and typically Mabanese themselves, tensions are still building between the groups, although not nearly to the extent
Figure 11: Wet season security incidents by distance to refugee camp, IDPs and host community
# of security incidents
8
6 Little relation seen between distance and conflict
4
2
0 0
2000
4000
6000
as between host community and refugees.
Peacebuilding activities
Along with refugees and IDPs straining available resources, host community reported feeling that their vulnerabilities are not as recognized by NGOs as those of the refugees. When employed by NGOs, refugees are reportedly paid in United States Dollars (USD) while host community members are still paid in South Sudanese Pounds (SSP), which is perceived as less desirable due to the massive inflation in 2016. Host community’s salaries were reportedly frequently paid later than those of refugees. Host community members also expressed the opinion that NGOs favour the other groups in their hiring practices. As a result, some youth have mobilized in an effort to gain employment, sending letters and directly contacting NGOs. Local staff strikes are also reportedly common across the county.
Because of the tensions, UNHCR and NGOs have implemented a multitude of peacebuilding activities across the county.41 However, the knowledge of these initiatives and perception of their effectiveness vary across refugees and host communities around Doro.
In addition, host community members feel frustrated by the relative lack of services and distributions they reportedly receive relative to the refugees. With higher levels of malnutrition on average than refugees, there is particular frustration over the lack of food distributions.40 While much of the anger in this regard is directed at NGOs who do not provide these services, perceptions of unfairness also stroke tensions between communities. Refugees noted in FGDs that the lack of food distributions to the host community was directly creating tensions between the two groups.
For those who were aware of peace programming activities, the most well known peace programmes were the DRC and UNHCR protection networks, peace tours and peace committees. However in FGDs, it was apparent that knowledge of a programme was often no more than knowledge of its existence.
Distance to refugee camp
21
40. LWR/LWF Needs Assessment: Maban County, Upper Nile State, South Sudan, 2015. 41. KII with protection actors.
Looking at Figure 12, it is readily apparent that there is more knowledge amongst refugees of peacebuilding activities than there is amongst host communities and IDPs. This was seen in FGDs, as no host community women reported knowing of any programmes, and most youth were only vaguely aware of any programmes. Even sheikhs, those most involved in the process, were only partially aware of the programmes. FGD IDP participants expressed even less knowledge of these programmes.
Figure 12: Knowledge of any peacebuilding activity
12%
9%
83%
Host community
IDPs
Refugees
Where knowledge did exist, communities usually reported being dissatisfied with the programmes. Women and youth would often emphasize the need to be involved themselves in the proceedings, as they typically only knew of the sheikh focused peace committees. KIs also reported that women and youth should be more involved, although noting that the lack of women involvement was due to the little space current decision making in Maban has for women. Emphasis was also placed on the need for agencies to enhance their support for peace programming, noting that current programmes are frequently inactive or fail to meet, and the resultant agreements often fall through. “Peace is a very complicated process. People have been making agreements but then others start the fighting. Peace committees gave up because they have called for several meetings but usually after that, one to two months later, conflict starts again.” - Woman refugee, Doro Camp Zone B42 Figure 13 shows no significant difference in reported number of incidents between respondents who are aware of current peace initiatives and those who are not. It is highly unlikely this is a result of proper targeting of peace programming as perpetrators of incidents are rarely known. KIs expressed reservations about peace programmes in Maban, such as the peace committees. There was a belief that many 22
programmes are designed from the top down, fit to meet donor requirements, and are implemented within the local context without consideration of local needs. UNHCR and NGO peace activities are all generally constrained by a restrictive project cycle as well. “They have not been really working. There is some exhaustion from the people about so many of these initiatives that are many times fitted to comply with donor’s specifications and no needs of the community.” - NGO staff, KII
43
Other KIs mentioned that another problem is that peace programming is frequently only activated in response to large incidents, rather than working to prevent such events. Yet even then, between the incidents in June and those in December, the peace committees between refugees and host communities had not met. KIs also indicated that IDPs, often the most vulnerable group in Maban due to their frequent displacement and lack of support from humanitarian agencies, are left out of peace programming. However, they can be exposed to the conflict as they live amongst host communities, or in the case of IDPs from Shata, have just as strong relations issues with refugees as the host community. During FGDs, Mabanese IDPs expressed the need for more training on conflict resolution and peaceful coexistence. While Koma IDPs expressed that they already have positive
Figure 13: Wet season number of security incidents by knowledge of peace initiatives45 Outlier
8
Respondents with knowledge of peace initiatives reported slightly more security incidents on average than respondents unaware of peace initiatives.
6
4
Upper quartile: 25% of the data is above this point
1.84
2
2.02 Mean response
Median response Lower quartile: 25% of the data is below this point
0 No
Yes
Knowledge of peace initiatives
relations with the surrounding communities, they also emphasized the need for peace programming between refugees and the host community. “We need peace between the refugees and the Mabanese, to be also safe and happy, because we are friends with both communities. We are living here with the Maban, so if refugees attack Mabanese we would find ourselves in the middle and we would not be very happy with that situation. - IDP woman, Ortiji44
42. Quote from an FGD with refugee women from Doro Camp Zone B on December 7th, 2016. 43. Quote from a KII with NGO staff on December 8th, 2016. 44. Quote from an FGD with IDP women from Ortiji on December 5th, 2016.
Positive aspects Despite these issues, communities around Doro Camp do share many things, from trade to cultural heritage. Highlighting these can be important, both for the design of future peacebuilding programmes and to ensure that discussions with communities do not only focus on the negative facets of security and relations. This can be especially important for the Mabanese and refugees, where formerly positive relations have now deterioriated significantly. Mabanese FGDs noted that relations used to be quite positive with the refugees, with trade
45. For more information on the Tukey boxplots presented, please see: http://vita.had. co.nz/papers/boxplots.pdf
and commerce occurring between the two groups, and drinking and dancing together a not uncommon activity. Refugees noted that host community members used to use the clinics and schools within the camp (those services host community members identified as the positive aspects of the refugees’ presence), although this halted after June 2016. Some refugee youth even said they went to school with Mabanese in Ethiopia and that some of them speak Mabanese. “School is a space that can bring together people from many different groups. Education must be guaranteed for youth from both host and refugees in the camp doing nothing.”
Similarities between the communities present opportunities to build better relations between the two as part of the broader, ongoing peace programmes. KIs mentioned that peacebuilding efforts frequently emphasise negative aspects of relations while lacking adequate focus on positive aspects that could be built upon. This is exacerbated by the fact that peacebuilding efforts are most often emphasized following incidents of conflict and high tensions between refugees and the host community.
- Youth refugee, Doro Camp Zone C46 As mentioned previously, cultural similarities between the communities were identified by refugees, such as the types of marks on the face, removal of their lower teeth, and similar earrings. Tools and instruments used by both communities are similar, and intermarriages before the recent events were not uncommon. “There are intermarriages with the Mabanese. Some of these families were also affected by the conflict and they ran together with their husband/wife. The Mabanese living in the camp had to run together with the refugees. Since the football incident, people didn’t marry together again.” - Woman refugee, Doro Camp Zone C47 23
46. Quote from an FGD with refugee male youth from Doro Camp Zone C on 8 December 2016.
47. Quote from an FGD with refugee women from Doro Camp Zone C on 8 December 2016.
Recommendations and conclusion This study, conducted in Doro camp and the surrounding host community and IDP villages, set out to focus on conflict and security during the 2016 wet season, and its root causes. Building on the previous work of REACH, DRC and DDG, this research expanded its scope to look beyond the triggers of conflict to also examine community dividers and connectors, as well as the awareness of the different ongoing peace initiatives in the area. The main conflict triggers in the area, in line with previous REACH assessments from 2015 and 2016, are reportedly the usage of land and natural resources, with the presence of arms also exacerbating the conflict. Tensions in community relations have been stoked further by conflict, but also by competition over livelihoods in access to natural resources, as well as competition over the benefits NGO presence provides. Although peacebuilding programmes have been put in place to address these issues and reduce the risk of conflict, there is widespread agreement from beneficiaries and actors in the area that they could be improved. The security situation in Doro has progressively deteriorated since mid-2016 due to a number of incidents that have affected the Mabanese population and the refugees. While relations may have been deteriorating prior, these 24
incidents constituted a turning point in the relationship between the host communities and refugees. As fighting increased in late-2016, Mabanese have been displaced from Shata, to the east of Doro. The fighting closed down the road to Yabus, one of the most used roads for refugees traveling to Blue Nile to cultivate. What follows is a set of recommendations that could participate in reducing insecurity and improving community relations.
Host community support Support from NGOs for the host community should be increased to match the support provided to refugees and IDPs, including food distributions. Both IDPs and refugees recommended in FGDs that more support be provided to the host community. Increased support will reduce the resentment over the support for refugees and IDPs, and help bolster a vulnerable host community, enabling more focus and attention to be paid to peacebuilding efforts. This will further reduce security issues surrounding distributions and service delivery, particularly for IDPs. Support should also include a reconsideration of Human Resources policies, including the salary payment differences between refugees and host community and hiring practices, as these perceptions of unfairness further differentiates between the two communities. 48. South Sudan: Lethal Disarmament, Amnesty International, 2012.
Arms control The presence of armed elements in both the host communities and within Doro Camp has proven likely to contribute to increased insecurity for all communities and stressed relations with host community for refugees. Efforts have been made to improve physical security inside the camp through checkpoints at the entrance of the camp. However, it is reportedly weakly enforced. Reinforcement of the rule of no arms and uniforms inside the camp should be made. Local authorities should establish stronger mechanisms to control arms in the hands of civilians in the host communities. It is important that any attempts at demilitarisation or arms control are carefully undertaken and do not leave one group at the mercy of another, as has happened before in South Sudan.48
Coordinated peacebuilding efforts The peace committees and other peacerelated initiatives should actively engaged more members from the host communities around Doro Camp. They should also integrate better leadership from a broader spectrum of community members from both the camp and the host communities, especially the youth, while still maintaining a partially top-down process. Efforts should be made to expand the reach of peace committees. They should become inclusive of IDPs as well as of host communities
on the periphery of the camp area that were not previously involved in the programmes, but are impacted by the conflict. These efforts should include major coordination between the agencies and local authorities. Authorities, as well as UNCHR and NGOs should do more to promote positive and noncompetitive social contact between refugees and hosts. Joint community projects that help ameliorate strains on local resources and services can be an effective way of supporting such interactions. In light of the finding that women from both communities are more willing and compromised with solving conflicts peacefully, more of these initiatives should be inclusive of women from the host community and refugees.
Conflict management skills Training of community leaders (traditional, women and youth) in conflict resolution and negotiation skills can contribute to improving their access to peaceful conflict management mechanisms. Programmes that build skills in negotiation and mediation should be expanded and incorporate leaders from a variety of communities, while also building relationships between the participants and the community they represent. Through this local capacity building, the effects of peace programming will be more likely to spread beyond merely the participants and have impact on the broader community.
Enhanced communication mechanisms Rumours and disinformation have played an important role in worsening the conflict and divisions between refugees and host communities. There is a need to directly debunk the biased information that proliferates after major incidents or events. Every time an incident occurs, it is important both communities receive solid, verifiable information aimed to avoid potential rumours that could further exacerate the conflict and worsen relations. In a crisis, communities usually go to their authorities or leaders to obtain information about specific incidents or events. Efforts should be made to enhance information sharing and communication with and between these authorities and leaders in order to promote factual, unbiased information disemmination to the communities. There is also potential to use other channels, such as radio programmes, to disseminate this type of information and other messages across Maban to promote peaceful coexistence.
Youth inclusion and participation More efforts to promote youth participation and positive leadership should be made with the Mabanese and the refugee youth. These include more trainings on peaceful coexistence and conflict resolution, together with more 25
spaces for youth to carry out activities such as the Youth Centers, not only inside the camp but also in the communities around it. The ongoing initiatives on English and Informatics trainings carried out by organizations such as the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) should be strengthened and should involve more youth from the camps and the host communities as a way to provide them with tools that can ease their access to the job market. Trainings should also occur, sensitising all in the area to the pathways to employment with NGOs, such as through trainings or capacity-building programmes. Education can potentially have a major role in reducing the tensions between both host communities and refugees. Hence, more efforts to guarantee a better access to education, especially secondary education for youth in both host communities and the camps, should be made.
Political negotiations As the current conflict is a complex situation involving many members of different communities, in conflict over a number of issues, any solution needs to come from multiple angles. This should include increased involvement of political actors in the area. Any peace agreement needs the support of local authorities and military leaders to control the presence of arms amongst host communities and refugees. These efforts should include
support for political negotiations between local authorities, community leaders, as well as armed groups present in the area.
Sustainable shelter materials Alternative shelter designs should be promoted in both refugee camps and the IDPs communities that allow a most sustainable use of the local resources. Access to materials for shelter such as wood, grass and other items has represented a challenge for both refugees and IDP communities, and also a cause of tensions with host communities. Local authorities together with UNHCR should promote the building of shelters that use sustainable materials and that can be accessed by the communities’ without increasing the tensions between them.
Annex I: Quantitative assessment tool
1. Record GPS location 2. Where is the interview taking place? 3. Respondent sex 4. Is the respondent a member of the host community, an IDP, or a refugee?
f. Other 12. What was the primary cause of the incident? a. Dispute over animal grazing b. Dispute over gathering wild food (e.g. lalop) c. Dispute over cropping land d. Dispute over collecting wood e. Dispute over collecting water f. Dispute over buying/selling charcoal g. Dispute over buying/selling other goods h. General argument i. General theft 13. This incident was between you and member(s) of what other group? a. Host community b. IDPs c. Refugees
Demographics
Relations and tensions
5. How old are you? 6. In which village of the camp are you located? (refugees only) 7. Who is your sheikh? (refugees only) 8. Where were you located before you were displaced to here? (IDPs only) 9. When did you arrive at your current location? (IDPs only)
[Loop 3 times to ask about 3 segments of the population]
Introduction Hi my name is ______. We are currently conducting a survey to understand more about the security situation in this location over the past dry season. The survey usually takes between 5 and 10 minutes to complete. Any information that you provide will be kept strictly confidential. This is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or all of the questions if you want; you may also choose to quit at any point. However, we hope that you will participate since your views are important. Do you have any questions? May I begin now?
Conflict and security 10. How many security incidents have you been involved in over the past wet season (fight, robbery, harassment, etc.)? [Loop up to 3 times to ask about 3 most recent security incidents] 11. What was the XX most recent incident you were involved in over the wet season? a. Robbery/theft (of personal belongings) b. Physical attack (beating, fighting, etc.) c. Theft of animals d. Verbal harassment e. I’d prefer not to answer 26
13. How are relations between you and the HC/IDP/refugee population? a. Very poor b. Poor c. Okay d. Good e. Very good f. I don’t know or I don’t want to answer 14. If poor or very poor, what is the biggest strain on you and HC/IDP/refugee population? a. Use of cropping lands b. Use of grazing lands c. Use of trees for firewood or charcoal d. Access to water (e.g. boreholes) e. Use of fishing areas f. Use of markets for buying/selling g. Lack of respect from the other group h. Theft of animals i. I don’t know or I don’t want to answer
15. What do you think has been the main positive change in the county since the arrival of the refugees? (only for host community) a. More schools b. More clinics c. More roads d. More jobs e. Material assistance received f. Other g. There have not been any positive changes
Peaceful coexistence programmes 16. Have you heard about any peace initiatives aimed at reducing tensions or conflict between communities in Maban? a. Yes b. No 17. If yes, what peace initiatives have you heard about? [select multiple] a. Peace committees b. Peace tours c. DRC conflict management programme d. DRC and UNHCR protection networks e. Youth committees/youth conference f. Other 18. If you have to mention one or more things you feel you share with refugees/host community, what would it be? a. Religion b. Ethnicity c. Trade d. Cultural traditions e. Language f. Common history g. Other
27
Annex II: FGD questioning route
Instructions to moderators
Introduction
1. Questions to participants: these are the questions that should be read and communicated to the participants. If there are some specific vocabulary which may be unclear, do not hesitate to provide a definition for the purpose of the exercise. 2. Probing questions: Probes and clarifying questions are an important part of interviewing and have two main purposes: 1) to help clarify what an interview respondent has said and 2) help get more detailed information on topics of interest. Probes allow the interview respondent to provide more than just a one-sentence answer to the questions to the questions you ask. Do not read probing questions to participants. Use or adapt them if necessary.
Hello, my name is XXXX. First, I would like to welcome and thank you for volunteering to take part in this focus group discussion/conflict mapping session where we will ask you about security and conflict for you over the past dry season. The session will also involve mapping, so we will ask you to locate on a map where different things like areas you use for resource access and areas of conflict. The information you will provide us will be used to inform response strategy and planning. Please note that this meeting does not have any impact on whether you or your family receives assistance. These discussions are only meant to better understand how you, your household, and the community. Anonymity: I would like to assure you that the discussion will be anonymous. I and the other focus group participants would appreciate it if you refrain from discussing the comments of other group members outside the focus group. If there are any questions or discussions that you do not wish to answer or participate in, you do not have to do so; however please try to answer and be as involved as possible. This session will take no more than one hour and a half.
Ground rules 1. The most important rule is that only ONE person speaks at a time. There may be a temptation to jump in when someone is talking but please wait until they have finished. 2. There are no right or wrong answers. 3. You do not have to speak in any particular order 4. When you do have something to say, please do so. There are many of you in the group and it is important that I obtain the views of each of you. 5. You do not have to agree with the views of other people in the groups. 6. [Explain the map and our locations] 7. Any questions? 8. Ok, let’s start.
Introduction Can everyone introduce themselves, telling me their names and ages? Please also tell us which village you come from within the camp. (for refugees only)
Livelihoods 1. Tell me about the cultivation last wet season. Where were you cultivating? 2. During the last wet season, where were you herding your livestock? 3. What types of goods were you buying/selling? Which markets were you buying/selling in? 4. Tell me about your experiences looking for work in Maban. [Probing: are there too few jobs, too much competition, lack of skills, lack of education] 5. How have livelihood options changed in recent years? (this can give an idea to what extent the arrival of refugees is perceived as decreasing/increasing livelihoods) 6. Tell me about the availability of jobs lately. How does competition between different communities (IDPs/HC/refugees) affect your ability to get a job?
Access to land 10. I would like to talk to you now about your community’s access to and use of land. Tell me about the land you use and/or your community use. [Probing: location, usage, type of access, time period of access, length of access]
Security incidents 11. How was security over the past wet season? Tell me about the overall security situation.
28
[Probing: What/where] 12. What were the causes of these security incidents? How did they happen? 13. Out of these causes/reasons for these reasons, which are more important than the others? Why would you say they are more important than the others? 14. With what groups are you more likely to have conflict? (another village in the camp, IDPs, refugees, host community, etc.) 15. You say that you’re more likely to have conflict with [specific group], why do you think that is the case? 16. How do you think this [specific group] views this conflict and these security incidents? 17. Why do you think episodes such as the one that happened in June occurred? 18. Looking forward, out of the different causes of security incidents you mentioned, what are most likely to cause a security incident again? Why? When?
No-go zones 18. Tell me about how these security incidents have effected changes in access to different areas of Maban for you and your community. [Probing: where, by who, why] 19. Are there places you are forbidden to go? Why?
Boundaries and agreements 20. What do you know about the borders of and rules surrounding refugee camps in the area? [Probing: which camps] 21. Do you know about new communities leaving or coming closer to the camp? 22. Is there any agreement between communities about an area for cultivation?
Agreements and laws 23. When you have a security incident, what authorities do you go to? 24. Talk to me about access to justice in the area.
Peaceful coexistence 25. Do you know or have you participated in any initiative aimed to solve tensions/conflicts? [Probing: DRC Conflict Management Program, Protection Networks, Peace Committees, Peace tours] 26. Looking back at the security incidents over the last wet season, what do you think about the
29
role of the current mechanisms that exist to solve the tensions/conflict? [Probing: opinion on peace committees] 27. How long and how often have you been using these different mechanisms? 28. Out of the conflict reduction mechanisms you’ve mentioned, which stands out as having been more effective in reducing tensions/conflict? 29. What types of coping mechanisms have you as a community used to deal with the tensions/ conflict? 30. Where do you think current peace programs are ineffective? How would you change them to make them better? Why? 31. How do you think your community can establish a better dialogue with other communities? What could help to that? [Probing: sharing aspects such as ethnicity, religion, common interests, etc.] 32. What do you think about the presence of arms in your community? What do you think as community can be done to reduce the presence of weapons? How does the presence of weapons affect your security? 33. Looking into the future, what mechanisms do you feel will be most effective in reducing conflicts/tensions? 34. What types of mechanisms, not currently used, do you think could be useful to implement? Why would these be more useful than the current mechanisms? 35. How do you think women/youth (depending on the group of the FDGs) can be more involved in the different peace initiatives? 36. What are the things that brings these communities (HC/IDPs/refugees) closer? How do you see the living situation evolving in future? 37. What do you think could be done to make living together easier? What could you and your community do to make relations better?
Annex III: Key informant tool
Relations and tensions
Relative to the FGD tool, the KI tool is much broader and less focused due to the conversational nature of KI interviews.
8. How have relations between communities been? Have they changed recently? What are the biggest factors impacting community relations?
Introduction
Information gaps
1. Introduction of myself and REACH a. Information management b. Mapping c. Assessments 2. Reason for being in Maban a. Conflict mapping b. Further details on the project and its outputs 3. Information of interest a. Geographic spread of conflict and insecurity b. Causes of conflict c. Relationship stressors d. No-go zones e. Impact of agreements and peace initiatives f. Changes and other dynamics
9. What information gaps are needing to be filled in relation to security, conflict, and community relations in Maban County? What type of information would best assist your programming and the work of others in the area? 10. What other information do you think is useful to know? What are the main points related to security over the past dry season?
Conflict and security overview 4. What have been the recent incidents of conflict? Where have they taken place? When did they take place? Who was involved? Are there specific communities more involved than others? Why did it take place? 5. How have the causes of conflict changed? 6. What are the seasonal differences in conflict? How is conflict during the wet season different?
Land use and peace agreements 7. What are the current agreements between refugees, IDPs, and host community? Do you think they are effective? How long have they been in place?
30
Annex IV: Maban County map, participatory mapping tool SOUTH SUDAN - Maban County, Upper Nile State
For Humanitarian Purposes Only Production date: 17 October 2015
Village Map - 21 August 2015 Maban County
²
Nila Kaya
To Jamam SEE INSET MAP
Kuola Offra
Kanaji
Khor El Amer Payam
Jafar Dida
Kujuria Dalija
bak
Yusif Gendrassa Batil Village Gendrassa
Kongo Farajala
Kongo Mamur
Peikaji West
Upper Nile Peikaji East
Godan 1
Godan 2 Tuk-checha
Doro
Orji Thomaji
us R. Yab
Gasmalla
Shata Boung Payam
Yawaji Damajin Dangaji
33°0'0"E
10°10'0"N
Melut County Kilo Wunamum Payam Ashra
4
Thueiji
Kilometers 6
33°30'0"E
33°40'0"E
Settlements
Sudan Maban "
"
Ethiopia CAR
South Sudan
UNHCR Camp Boundary
Juba ! \
DR Congo
31
Uganda
Refugee Camp
Kenya
Runway Road
Baliet County
Upper Nile
Bir Taltah
State boundary Boung
County Boundary Payam
Natural Features River Fresh water marsh
Kidwa (Jamam) R. Yale To Offra (SEE MAIN MAP)
Jinmakda Payam Benketa
R. Ahm ar
Jamam Village
Maban County
0
5
33°50'0"E
Administrative Boundaries
County Capital Village
10°0'0"N
9°50'0"N
2
33°20'0"E
Upper Nile
10°5'0"N
Banashawa (Liang)
Akotweng Payam
0
33°10'0"E
Buta Buote
Banashowa Payam
Tapiego
Dollo I Tejinb Dollo II Luganji Hai-Naivasha Robangoye Hai-Sifta Gulawiny " Bunj Town Benchul
10°10'0"N
Yusif Batil
10°5'0"N
R. Tom
Bewo
Data sources: adminstrative units, hydrology: OCHA COD; basemap: Esri; roads (2015); all other features: REACH (2015). Coordinate System:GCS WGS 1984 Contact:
[email protected] Note: Data, designations and boundaries contained on this map are not warranted to be error-free and do not imply acceptance by the REACH partners, associates, donors or any other stakeholder mentioned on this map. REACH_SSD_Map_Maban_STM_Villages_21AUG2015_A3
10
Kilometers 15 Jinkuata Payam
10°0'0"N
10°0'0"N
Jinkuata Payam
34°0'0"E
