2022 HPC Stakeholder Engagement

SUDAN: 2022 Humanitarian Program Cycle

2022 HPC Stakeholder Engagement

2nd Meeting 12 September 2021

2022 - Stakeholder engagement

Partners and individual agencies (INGOs, UN

agencies, NNGOs), Affected people

Inter-Cluster Coordination

Group (ISCG) and Information

Management Working Group

(IMWG)

HCT and HCT Plus

OCHA

Humanitarian Donor

Working Group

DSWG, Peacebuilding

WG, HLP, etc

• Lead process

• Lead engagement

with Government;

HC/RC, donors

Go

vern

men

t en

gag

em

en

t

Clusters and RCF

Cross Cutting theme

experts

Date Activity/Milestone Stakeholder Engagements

2-Dec GHO Launch

9-Nov Final HRP

4-NovDiscuss HRP target, and financial requirements

Multi- Stakeholder engagement meeting #4

30-Oct HRP Draft

30-Sep Final HNO

23 -SepDiscuss HRP strategy, scope and parameters; strategic objectives


13-Sep Draft HNO

5-SepDiscuss draft needs analysis, PIN, and severity of needs


Key Dates

Agenda & Outcomes

Time Agenda Item Outcome

1.00 pm – 1.10 pm• Welcome Remarks – HC/RC

• Introduction and objectives

1.10 pm – 1.30 pm

• Highlights on 2022 HNO process – how we

got here?

• Timeline

• Understanding of the HNO process,

including engagement with the clusters,

data collection, and analysis process

1.30 pm – 1.45 pm• 2022 HNO Scope, Methodology, and

overview of the context

• Secondary vs. Primary data analysis

• Data source and coverage

• Context overview

1.45 pm – 2.00 pm

• 2022 HNO Needs Analysis: highlights,

People in Need, Severity and drivers

• MSNA summary

• Cross Cutting issues – AAP, Gender,

Disability, Gender, Durable Solutions,

Protection, Cash, Youth

• Understanding and discussion on 2022

HNO key elements

• Summary of the MSNA data collection

• Cross-cutting engagement process and

key issues

2.00 pm – 3.50 pm

• 2022 HNO Sector Overview (PiN, PiN

Methodology, and key findings for sectors

and refugees)

• 2022 HNO Sector overview of PIN

figures and Key findings for sectors and

refugees

3.50 pm – 4.00 pm • Conclusion and next steps

HNO HRP

Scope of the analysis and costing approach

Primary data collection

Secondary data review

Scope of HRP and formulate initial objectives

Response analysis

Strategic and specific objectives & prioritization

Activities & estimate cost of response plan

Needs assessment & analysis Response analysis & planning

Inter-sectoral needs analysis

After Action Review

5

1

2

8

4

3

9

7

6

2022 HPC – The Process

Scope and Data Collection

• BANVA

• CFSAM

• DTM

• IPC

• JENA

• MSNA

• VOICES

• Baseline

• Sector specific

• DEEP

• HNO

• FSMS

Dat

a C

olle

ctio

nSc

op

e

• Whole of Sudan

• Focus on Vulnerability

• 4 main population groups identified

Primary Secondary

Key Statistics

• Indicator • 51 indicators across all sectors & AoRs• Broken down into Life-threatening and

Life-sustaining

• MSNA• 12,800 household interviews• All states (except Khartoum)• 9,003 interviews (available mid-oct 2020,

partial dataset), 13,769 were done by the end (was available start of Nov 2020)

• DEEP• 162 reports, 7,212 leads• 9 subject specific analysis reports

produced• DEEP and the analysis team (global

team, multiple organisations UN and NGO)

Indicator Breakdown by Humanitarian Condition

Humanitarian Condition 2022 2021

Life sustaining 18 24

Life threatening 32 40

Impact on services 1 2

Coping mechanisms 0 2

Total 51 68

Data Sources

Sector Data Source Coverage

Education FMoE, IPC (2021), JENA Whole of Sudan

Food Security Integrated Food Security Phase Classification - IPC (2021) Whole of Sudan

Health FMoH/WHO, EPI Program, HIS, SMOH, RH directorate Whole of Sudan

Nutrition Simple Spatial Survey Method -S2MII, S3MII (2018/2020) Whole of Sudan

Protection

Child ProtectionService mapping, CP Needs Assessment, MRM IMS+, CPIMS+, MoSA,

UNICEF

GBV S3M II (2018),Voices of Sudan Assessment (2021) Whole of Sudan

General

Protection

Report/Protection Sector Intercommunal Conflicts Incidence

Tracker/Protection Monitoring Reports (2021), Hazard Rankings,

Protection Sector IDP Settlement Risk Level Analysis

Whole Sudan

Mine Action

RCF

Shelter/NFIsSector needs assessments, IA/Rapid Assessments (2021), NFI data

tracking sheets (NFI CP), S3MII

WASH S3MII (2018/2020) Whole of Sudan

Baseline Data sources: BANVA, DEEP, DTM, MSNA, IPC (all from 2021)

Sector Indicators

2022 Indicator Humanitarian Condition

Education Total Non-Enroled Children Life sustaining

Total Enroled Children IPC 3+ Life sustaining

FSL Population in IPC 3+ Life sustaining

Health Coverage of DTC3 (DPT3 / PENTA3) in < 1 year old, by locality Life threatening

Number of inpatient beds per 10,000 Life sustaining

Average population per functioning primary health centers (PHC). Impact on servicesNumber of HF with Basic Emergency Obstetric Care/ 500,000 population, by administrative unit Life sustainingNumber of skilled birth attendant personnel (doctors, nurses, certified midwives) per 10,000 people Life sustaining

Percentage of children aged six months to 15 years who have received measles vaccination Life threatening

Sector Indicators

2022 Indictaor Humanitarian Condition

NutritionPrevalence acute malnutrition among pregnant and lactating women (PLW) Life threatening

Prevalence Global acute malnuitrition (children under 5) Life threateningPrevalence severe acute malnutrition (MUAC <115mm/+ or - oedema) in children 0-59 months Life sustainingPrevalence chronic malnutrition (Stunting/low height for age) among children 6-59 months Life threatening

Exclusive breastfeeding for infants 0-5 months

Child protection % of girls / boys without access to core CP services Life sustaining

% of girls / boys engaged in hazardours child labour Life threatening% of girls / boys that have been separated from their parents or other typical adult caregivers Life threatening

% of children and adolescents that have experienced violence, abuse, and neglect Life threatening

Sector Indicators

2022 Indictaor Humanitarian ConditionGBV % of HH having difficulties accessing health services Life threatening

% of HHs with at least one member who has experienced signs of psychological distress Life threatening% of girls / women who avoid areas because they feel unsafe Life threateningAvailability of core GBV services (GBV Case management, Individual psychosocial support (PSS), Clinical Management of Rape (CMR), Medical services for IPV/other physical violence, Mental Health) Life threatening

General Protection # of fatalities due to security incidents Life threateningMulti Hazard Ranking (Locality Level Protection Risk Analysis Life threatening% of HHs in which some members do not have at least one type of civil

documentation Life sustaining

Shelter / NFIs# Estimated population potentially affected by Risk of conflict (Armed + Tribal clashes) Life threatening% of housholds in need for shelter assistance Life sustaining

WASH % of HHs having access to *basic water services Life threatening% of HHs having access to **limited sanitation services Life threatening% of HHs having access to handwashing with soap and water Life threatening

Sector Indicators2022 Indicator Humanitarian ConditionRCF-Education OOSC Refugee Children Life sustaining

PC3+ Life sustainingRCF-FSL IPC Phase Life threatening

S3M - IYCF : Age-appropriate dietary diversity Life threateningS3M IYCF : Age-appropriate meal frequency Life threatening

RCF-Health % Measles vaccination with card (9-59 months) Life threatening% Currently enrolled in ANC programme Life threateningVitamin A supplementation within past 6 months with card Life threatening

RCF- Nutrition % GAM rate (6-59 MONTHS) Life threatening% Anemia (6-59 MONTHS) Life threatening% Stunting (6-59 MONTHS) Life threatening% Exclusive Breast feeding (0-5 MONTHS) Life threatening% Introduction of food(6-8 MONTHS) Life threatening

RCF-Protection # of Woman-headed HH Life threatening# of girls / boys that have been separated from their parents, Unaccompanied and Separated Children Life threatening% of individually registered Life threatening

RCF-Shelter Congestion of camp Life sustaining# of new arrival in 2022 who needs ES/NFI Life sustaining# of newly registration pop in 2022 who needs ES/NFI Life sustaining

RCF-WASH % Diarrhea in the past 2 weeks Life sustainingS3M- WASH: Improved drinking water source within 30 minutes Life sustaining% households using an improved toilet facility, not shared Life sustaining

Calculating PiN and SoN

Inter-sector

• Same as previous years

• PiN - max value across all indicators to derive LS and LT. Then max value of LS and LT to estimate PiN

• SoN - double weighted mode for FSL, NUT, WSH, HLT

Sectors:

• Life-sustaining and Life-threatening indicators with thresholds

• Severity ranking

• PIN & Severity calculations

Life Threatening• PiN• Severity

Overall PiN & Severity

Life Sustaining• PiN• Severity

Sector X• PiN• Severity

Sector 3• PiN• Severity



Context

Political

Economic Reforms Drivers of Need

Non-Humanitarian

Resources

CONTEXT

???

Security Environment

Context (2)

• Political transition and peace process continue despite challenges

• Government has carried bold economic reforms aimed at reformatting

Sudan’s economy and reintegrating it to the international system

• However, it will take time before citizens feel the results of the reforms

(economic growth expected to resume from 2023)

• Major increase in multilateral and bilateral development funding is

anticipated

• Indicators point to more people needing assistance in 2022

• Key drivers of need on a negative trajectory

What is the MSNA Saying?

MSNA summary• 17,000 Questionnaires

➢ 4,474 - telephone interviews, 12,425 Face-to –Face, 19 states including Abyei, 150 localities, 305 enumerators

• 75% (12,570 questionnaires) of data available for analysis available by end of August

• 100% of clean data available end of September

• Sectoral participation for questionnaire review

• Regular NATT meetings for planning and updates

• Analyzed together with other assessments

Key Findings• Top priorities are food, health, drinking water, education and livelihoods

• GBV continues to affected the most vulnerable in Sudan,

• Significant proportion of households reporting disability

Cross Cutting Themes (1)• Clinics conducted for 7 cross cutting issues

• Participation of partners (INGOS and sectors)

Conflict

Sensitivity

Issue Assessment Key findings

Cash Multi Sectoral Joint Assessment

2021 Increase of programmes/ projects using cash modality across all sectors:• 40 projects in 2020 compared to 131 in 2021• 24 projects using vouchers in 2020 compared to 53 in 2021

Durable Solutions

Durable Solutions & BaselineAnalysis

Analysis and baseline reports for 8 localities across 5 Darfur states:• Majority of IDPs in Darfur states prefer local integration.• Majority of returnees regained/retained access to the land they farmed before

displacement.• Community participation in reconciliation efforts high but low among female-

headed HHs• Low youth participation in conflict resolution mechanisms

AAP MSNA • Top priorities reported 1. Health (55% of MSNA HH), 2. Water to drink (49%) 3. Education (37%) and Livelihoods (36%).

• 41% of HH are aware of people unable to access information about assistance because of specific needs. (61% in White Nile)

• 4% of HHs think they should have to pay for aid or have seen others paying for aid.

Conflict

sensitivity

Issue Assessment Key findings

Gender MSNA • Women and girls are more likely to be missing state documents. 21% of HH have people that are missing documents. Children are more likely to be missing documents than adults

Protection MSNA • 60% of households report that their school-aged children (6-17) have worked in the past six months. (similar figures for boys and girls).

• 5% of HH report being affected by security incidents in past three months.• 13% of HH include children that have been orphaned or separated from

their parents or other typical adult caregivers.

Disability MSNA • 30% of HH include one or more people with some form of disability.• The most common reported impairment is vision (47%) followed by

hearing and mobility (both 28%)• Work to avail context-specific barriers

Youth Census • Median age – 19• 50% of the population is below 19 years• Consider needs from a youth Lens

Cross Cutting Themes (2)

Floods

Conflict

Disease Outbreaks

Food Insecurity

Economy

Drivers of Need (1)

People In Need

Drivers of Need (2)Hazard 2020 2021 Trend (2018-21) Projection

Natural disaster -

Floods

People affected: 650K

Houses damaged: 68K

Houses destroyed: 63K

(as of 13 Sep 2020)

Affected end of 2020 – 900k

People affected: 102K

Houses damaged: 15K

Houses destroyed: 6K

(as of 12 Sep 2021)

Conflict People displaced: 54KEnd of year 58k

People displaced: 420K

Diseases

(Number and

Types)

16,052 COVID-19 cases

109 Chikungunya cases,

81 Dengue fever cases

706 Polio cases

1.1M cases of malaria (as of

September 2020)

37,653 COVID-19 cases,

859 Hepatitis E cases

1,252 Measles cases

56,566 Malaria (as of August

2021)

Economy Inflation - 144% (Jul) Inflation - 422.78% (Jul)

Food Security Projection Jun – Sep 2020:

9.6M

Projection Jun – Sep

2021: 9.8M

COVID-19

People in Need - Trend

• Analysis: Status vs vulnerability

• Scope: conflict states vs whole country

• Common hazards• Conflict

• Diseases

• Economy (from 2018)

• Floods

• Food Insecurity

5.4 5.84.8

5.5

8.59.3

13.4

??

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

People In Need(million)

PIN by SectorSector PIN 2021

(inc. REF)

Sector PIN

2022

Refugee PIN

2022

PIN 2022

(inc. REF)

Change

Education 2.9M 3.1M 246K 3.3M 0.4M

Food Security & Livelihoods 8.2M 9.8M 1.1M 10.8M 2.6M

Health 9.2M 9.1M 1.2M 10.3M 1.1M

Nutrition 3.7M 3.9M 137K 4M 0.3M

Protection 4.6M 4.5M -

Child Protection 2.6M 3.2M 3.2M 0.6M

GBV 2.3M 2.7M 2.7M 0.4M

General Protection 2.5M 3.3M 1.2M 4.5M 2M

Mine Action 2.7M

RCF 1.1M 1.2M 1.2M 0.1M

Shelter/NFIs 2.3M 2.7M 353K 2.7M 0.4M

WASH 9.0M 11.1M 1.1M 12.2M 3.0M

Sector presentations

• RCF

• Health• WASH• Nutrition• FSL

• Protection• Child Protection• GBV

• Shelter & NFI• Education

RCF

PIN Map Severity Map

1.2M PIN

Refugee Consultation Forum

People in need number and methodology

• 2022 PIN: 1,163,106

• Refugee population trends• South Sudanese

• Eritreans

• Ethiopians

• Syrians

• Central African Republic

• Chad

• Methodology• 23 indicators from 7 sectors

1,000,000

1,050,000

1,100,000

1,150,000

1,200,000

2020 2021 2022

Refugee PiN timeline

Refugee Consultation Forum

Key findings

• Unstable situation in Ethiopia, increased arrivals from South Sudan

• Khartoum and White Nile host the largest numbers of refugees

• Refugees generally have higher levels of vulnerability than their host communities across all sectors

• Refugees in camps/camp-like situations have higher levels of vulnerability than out-of-camp refugees

• High needs among refugees across all sectors

Health


10.4M PIN

--------------------

9.2M Sector PIN

1.2M Ref PIN

PIN

2021 2022

PIN 8.6 M 9.2M

Target 5.6M 6.5M

Severe 2.4M 2.8M

Extreme 4.8M 4.7M

Catastrophic 0.8M 1.8M

Health indicators and main findings

PENTA 3 vaccine dropout 8 %

Measles vaccination coverage 67%

Available health workforce (doctors + nurses+ midwives) Enough to support 17% of population

Supported health facilities Dropped by 23%

Availability of emergency medicines 43%

Accessibility to medicines Prices increased by 1000%

Access to Basic Emergency Obstetric Care 1.5 million women has no access to services

WASH


12.2M PIN

--------------------

11.1M Sector PIN

1.1M Ref PIN

WASH Sector KEY FIGURES

• People in Need = 11.1 million and with Refugees –12.2 M

• Children – 48%

• Women - 26 %

• People with disability – 15 %

• Vulnerable residents – 7.8M

• IDPs – 2.59M

• Returnees- 897.5k

• Refugees – 1.1 M

Low (1)

Medium (19)

High (48)

Very High(103)

Severe (19)

Severity Scale, # of localities

WASH

Methodology Key findings• Base population: IDPs, Returnees,

Refugees, Vulnerable residents (as per IPC 3,4 and 5) used as a base population to determine WASH PIN.

• Severity scale; recommended Joint Inter sectoral analysis framework (JIAF) standard indicators under the physical and mental wellbeing for Humanitarian conditions were used.

• Data: S3MII (2020), cross-ref with MSNA 2020 for the indicators and JIAF severity thresholds. MSNA 2021 will help update some information but the overall will not change.

• S3MII data which fell in the highest three JIAF severity scale (3-5) applied to the affected pop to get the PIN 2022. The refugee population (total) added after the analysis.

• Disability among people in need calculated based on global estimate of 15%.

• 170 localities part of the HNO severity scale

• 49 localities with WASH severity (3-5) is also part of the high severity (3-4 where 4 is highest) of hazards. Over all 108-hazard prone localities (2, 3, 4 on severity scales) are part of the 3-5 WASH severity.

• Water, Sanitation and Hygiene are common issues for 85% people in the 109 localities where People are drinking from surface water and unprotected water sources, those with unimproved sanitation and open defecation areas are prioritized.

• Affected people with lack of WASH will suffer more during the time of crisis

• Major Intersectoral linkages – Nutrition, Health, FSL and Education

• New surveys/ assessment will be generated to update the data in the months to come. One such analysis is initiated with the GWC. This WASH severity classification is an equivalent of IPC for FSL.

SCALE

WATE

R SANITATION HYGIENE SEVERITY_SECTOR

Severe (5) 11 93 134 19

Very high (4) 21 44 32 103

High (3) 45 27 15 48

Low (2) 57 18 9 19

Very Low (1) 55 8 0 1

Indicator vs Severity scale ( JIAF recommended)

Indicator Name/label Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) Very high (4) Severe (5)

HYGIENE

% of HHs handwashing facility on premise with soap and water available

HH: Soap is available at home AND handwashing facility is on premises with soap and water available

Area: >80%

soap or water (one of which) is available without hand washing facilities

51-80% ( no data)

Soap is not available at home and no handwashing facility with soap and water on premise

Area: 0-50%

SANITATION% of HHs that are sharing latrine with less than 20

people (Or access to limited sanitation services)

HH: Access to improved sanitation facilities, not shared with other households

Area: 0-20%

HH: Access to improved sanitation facilities, shared with less than 20 people

Area: 21-40%

HH: Access to improved sanitation facilities, shared with more than 20 people

Area: 41-60%

HH: Access to unimproved facilities OR access to improved facilities shared with more than 50 people

Area: 61-80%

HH: Disposal of human faeces in open spaces or with solid waste

Area: 81-100%

WATER

% of HHs with water collection time not exceeding 30 minutes for a roundtrip including

queuing (Or access to basic water services)

HH: Water comes from an improved water source which is located on premises

Area: 0-20%

HH: Water comes from an improved water source, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a roundtrip, including queuing

Area: 21-40%

HH: Water comes from an improved source for which collection time exceeds 30 minutes for a roundtrip, including queuing

Area: 41-60%

HH: Water comes from an unimproved water source

Area: 61-80%

HH: Water comes directly from rivers, lakes, ponds, etc.

Area: 81-100%

Nutrition


4M PIN

--------------------

3.9M Sector PIN

137K Ref PIN

Nutrition

• Overall PIN: 4,059,258 incl refugees

• Total PIN excl Refugees:

• 3,922,067 (<5s 77%; PLWs 23%) People with disability (<5s and PLWs) 10.3%

• Vulnerable residents 3,543,156

• IDPs - 281,323

• Returnees- # 97,588

• Refugees - # 137,191 (<5s 91.6%; PLW 8.4%)

Nutrition

Methodology

• Estimated based on the global

methodology for calculating children in

need of treatment for acute malnutrition

• The PIN is only focusing on life threating

condition=acute malnutrition among <5s

+ PLWs

• Estimates are based on revised S3M

survey results of 2020- First time to be

used in estimating need in Sudan.

• PLW- SAM included in the PIN calculation

• Disability among under-five and PLW

calculated based on global estimate of

10% and 15% respectively

Key findings

• Nutrition situation remain at very high levels: 79 localities have

GAM 15% and above (very high prevalence/critical) and 9 have

catastrophic levels

• 35% of under-five PIN live in 58 localities with nutrition severity

scale 4 and 5

• 28% of the under-five PIN live in 41 localities with severe to

catastrophic Health, WASH and Food severity scales

• Only (25.4%) of children 6-23mo received a diversified diet; out

of which 12.8 % 6-23mo received an adequate diversified diet.

• Key humanitarian need includes:

• Need to strengthen the integration between nutrition curative &

preventive interventions

• Urgent need for updating nutrition situation through conducting

SMART, coverage, MICS and other types of surveys/

assessments.

FSL


10.9M PIN

--------------------

9.8M Sector PIN

1.1M Ref PIN

FSL HNO/HRP 2022 – PiN, Target and Severity

Food Security Sector depend on the IPC

approach in the preparation of HNO/HRP in

terms of PiN calculation and severity ranking.

IPC includes set of tools and procedures to

classify the nature and severity of food

insecurity for decision support. The IPC

classifies areas with Acute Food Insecurity

into five Phases: Minimal, Stressed, Crisis,

Emergency and Famine. Each of these

Phases has different implications for response

objectives.

- PiN 2022: 9.8 Million

- Target 2002: 8.4 Million

Increase in number of people food insecure

from 7.2 M (IPC 2021) to 9.8 M due to

different factors (1). Inflation remains high in

the short and medium term. (2). Flooding and

the impact on production. (3). Conflict and

displacement are expected with security

situation fluctuations. (4). impacts of the

COVID-19 pandemic


❑ The current IPC analysis period (June – September 2021) indicates a significant increase of highly food insecure people in

Sudan Overall, 9.8 million people are estimated to require of urgent humanitarian responses to save lives, reduce food

consumption gaps, restore and protect livelihoods. This represents a 34% increase compared to the need at the beginning of

2021.

❑ Nearly 7.1 Million in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) which marks an increase of 30% from 5.5 million to 7.1 million of people in Crisis

(IPC Phase 3) in previous IPC, and around 46.5% increase in people in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) from 1.8 Million to 2.7 Million.

❑ At state level, the highest percentage of populations in IPC Phase 3 (Crisis) or worse in West Darfur (30%), North Darfur

(29%), and East Darfur state (28%). With five localities fall under IPC Phase 4 (Ag geneina/West Darfur – Halaib & Jubayt

elmaaadin/Red Sea - Al buram & Heiban/South Kordofan).

❑ FSL will target 8.4 M categorized with segregation of 5.7 M with SO1 (Food) and 3.0 M with SO2 (Livelihoods) under three

major groups;

1. Communities affected or residing in high-risk areas, prone to natural or man-made disasters.

2. Vulnerable individuals from the host, internally displaced, returnee and refugee communities who face levels of food

insecurity due to limited accessibility and availability of adequate, sufficient and nutritious food.

3. small-scale farmers who face major constraints in farming because of high costs of production, post-harvest losses, access

to farmlands, markets and information


7,2

98

,27

3

6,2

88

,16

6

4,2

82

,57

9

2,2

43

,86

1

9,7

69

,62

1

8,4

17

,47

1

5,7

32

,75

0

3,0

03

,68

0

PiN Target SO1 SO2

IPC 2021 vs IPC 2022

IPC 2021 IPC 2022

1

98

83

2 -

51

130

5

Phase (1) Phase (2) Phase (3) Phase (4)

# Localities under IPC 2021/IPC 2022

IPC 2021 IPC 2022

General Protection


4.5M PIN

--------------------

3.3M Sector PIN

1.2M Ref PIN

General Protection PIN

IDPS Returnees Vulnerable Residents

Total

1,470,788 385,950 1,492,080 3,348,818

PIN: 3,348,818

Indicator 2021 Humanitrain Condition Low (1) Medium (2) High (3)Very high

(4)

Severe

(5)Data Source Vulnerable Groups

# of fatalities due to

security incidentsLife Threatening 0 - 5 06-10 11-20 21 - 40 >40

ACLED/DSS

Report/Protection Sector

Intercommunal Conflicts

Incidence Tracker/Protection

Monitoring Reports

IDPs, IDP-Returnees, Host

Community

Multi-hazard

ranking Life Threatening 1 2 3 4 5

OCHA Hazard

Ranking/Protection Sector

IDP Settlement By Risk Level

Analysis

IDPs, IDP-Returnees, Host

Community

% of HHs in which

some members do

not have at least

one type of civil

documentation

Life Sustaining <10% 10% - 19% 20% - 29% 30% - 39% >=40% MSNAIDPs, IDP-Returnees, Host

Community

Severity Indicators

• Indicators that have been used in assessing the severity of protection needs includes a) ‘number of fatalities

due to security incidents’, b) conflicts/hazards ranking’ and c) ‘percentage of households with members who do

not possess civil documentation’.

• An intra-sectoral analysis approach integrating sub-sector indicators have been used to provide a

comprehensive severity analysis of protection needs.

• A review of primary and secondary data sources, (intercommunal conflicts incidence tracker, hotspot map,

ranking of IDP settlements by Risk Level data, OCHA hazard ranking data, S3M data 2018, CPIMS and

relevant assessments have been used to estimate the PiN, using the agreed baseline datasets, noting that the

average approach was used to calculate the final PiN and severity ranking.

• The severity of protection needs is very high and severe in 56 localities of 13 States, especially in South Darfur

where 11 out of 21 localities fell into the extreme and catastrophic severity ranking, followed by North Darfur (8

localities), South Kordofan (6 localities), Central Darfur (5 localities), West Darfur (4 localities) and East Darfur

(3 localities).

• In addition, MSNA data indicates that 22 per cent of households have one or more members who do not

possess any form of civil documentation, with significantly higher proportions in some localities.

Key findings

Child Protection

PIN Map

3.2M PIN

--------------------

3.2M Sector PIN

Severity Map

Child Protection Severity Indicators

Indicator 2021Humanitrain Condition

Low (1)

Medium (2)

High (3)

Very high (4)

Severe (5) Data Source Vulnerable Groups Data Limitations

% of girls / boys without access to core CP services

Life sustaining

0% -10%

11% - 19% 20% -39%

40% - 79% >80% Service mapping\MSNA\CP Needs Assessment

children and adolescents from IDPs, IDP-Returnees, Host Community

Service mapping\MSNA\CP Needs Assessment. In the absence of reliable data, the social worker capacity and gap assessment will be used as proxy

% of girls / boys engaged in hazardous child labour

Life Threatening 0% -10%

11% - 19% 20% -39%

40% - 79% >80% MSNA\Needs Assessment

children and adolescents from IDPs, IDP-Returnees, Host Community

MSNA\Needs Assessment. In absence of reliable data, 35% global average (based on ILO reports) will be applied

% of girls / boys that have been separated from their parents or other typical adult caregivers


6% - 10% 11% -20%

21% - 30% >30% DTM\CPIMS children and adolecents from IDPs, IDP-Returnees, Host Community

DTM\CPIMS. where there is active conflict and possible flooding a 30% risk proxy will be applied to the locality to estimate the number of Children at risk of being unaccompanied and seperated

% of children and adolescents that have experienced violence, abuse, and neglect


11% - 19% 20% -39%

40% - 79% >80% MRM IMS/ CPIMS+ children and adolecents from IDPs, IDP-Returnees, Host Community

MRM IMS/ CPIMS+. in the absence of reliable locality level data, a 40% risk proxy will be applied to the locality to estimate the number of Children at risk of abuse, violence and neglect .

Needs Analysis

• The Child Protection needs analysis is primarily informed by various sources including, Child Protection Service

mappings, Safety Audits, Child Protection assessments , Data from Child Protection Information Management

System (CPIMS), Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism for grave child rights violations (MRMIMS+) and Multi sector

Needs Assessment (MSNA). Additional information from secondary data analysis as well as validation with partners

at state level was used to ensure that the analysis reflects the reality.

• All four indicators were selected based on data availability

• Thresholds and phrasing of indicators were adapted/updated for Joint intersectoral analysis

PIN calculation;

• For the overall locality severity calculated the average value by combining the sector severity 3,4 and 5 from the

sector specific indicators with the Multi-hazard risk level 3, 4 and 5. The mathematical calculation of severity was

however crosschecked and amended - when needed - with ground truth.

GBV


2.7M PIN

--------------------

2.7M Sector PIN

2022 HNO Cluster Needs Identification - Methodology

1. Cluster needs identification approach• GBV Cluster’s need analysis is primarily informed by MSNA.• All four GBV indicators were new and more targeted than last year’s, reflecting a better work at cluster level in

collecting data and increased data availability at Intersectoral level.

2. Relevant GBV work on the definition of humanitarian needs• Preliminary work on MSNA questionnaire to fine tune/update options and questions related to GBV and to better

streamline GBV across other sectors• Thresholds and phrasing of indicators were adapted/updated to better meet JIAF guidance and Sudan changing

landscape

3. PiN Calculation methodology• PiN calculations were based on JIAF data scenario B, with small adjustments to reflect the varying degree of needs in

Sudan (e.g., State prioritization based on expert judgement)• Based on expert's knowledge, the GBVSS created a reference table, deciding the proportion of affected people in need

per severity class, and per population group.• GBV PiN estimated the needs of IDPs, Returnees and Vulnerable Host and considered in need 100% of women and

girls, 20% of boys and 10% of men.

PIN 20222.7 M

ACUTE PIN 20222.0 M

PIN 20212.3 M

TARGET 2021900 K

Key Findings- GBV

1. MSNA

• GBV continues to plague the most vulnerable in Sudan, PiN increased in most key states

2. Service Mapping

• Lack of access to quality specialized lifesaving GBV services, in particular, the clinical management

of rape (CMR), and psycho-social support (PSS), legal aid and case management

• Community structures remain challenges: limited number of localities with functioning community-

based protection networks and women’s centers offering GBV services

3. Voices from Sudan 2021 (Qualitative)

• Respondents perceived domestic violence and sexual violence as the most common GBV incident

happening in their community

• Most GBV goes unreported. Reporting domestic violence and by members of the community is

particularly challenging. Sexual violence goes unreported unless it results in pregnancy

Targeting2022 HNO Cluster Needs Identification Indicators and Thresholds

INDICATORVS HNO

2021MINIMAL (1) STRESS (2) SEVERE (3) EXTREME (4)

CATASTROPHIC (5)

Availability of core GBV services (Case mgmt. , PSS, CMR, Medical services for

IPV/other physical violence, Mental Health).

New5 or 4 services

available3 services available 2 services available

1 or no service available

N/A

% of HH where at least one member is reporting signs of

distress (self-diagnosed)New Less than 10% Between 10% and 20% Between 20% and 40% Between 40% and 60% More than 60%

% women and girls who avoid areas because they feel

unsafe thereNew Less than 5% Between 5% and 15% Between 15% and 25% Between 25% and 35% More than 35%

% of HH having difficulties accessing health services

New None reported

HH select: 1) High cost of transportation; 2)

Overcrowding; 3) Long waiting times, 4) Other

(specify)

HH select: 1) Absence health workers; 2)

Facility far away; 3) Facility not accessible

for people with disability; 4) Lack of trust in health

workers; 5) Cost of services/medicine too

high; 6) Lack of medicines; 7) Treatment

for my condition/disease N/A

HH select: 1) Lack of trust due to concerns

about privacy or mistreatment; 2) Travel

not safe/security concerns; 3)

Discrimination against specific categories.

N/A

Shelter/NFIs


2.7M PIN

--------------------

2.7M Sector PIN

Indicator Consequence Minimal (1) Stress (2) Severe (3) Extreme (4) Critical (5) Rationale Data Source

Estimated population affected by the risk of conflict (armed + tribal clashes)

Physical and mental well –being

0% 1% - 25% 26% - 38% 39% - 44% > 44% Possibility of conflict/violence outbreaks impacting physical and mental well being of the population

HNO hazard data

% of households applying high-risk coping mechanisms

Physical and mental well –being

0% 1% - 5% 6% - 25% 26% - 50% > 50% High-risk coping mechanisms heighten vulnerability

S3M coping strategy index

% of households in need of NFI assistance

Living standards ≤ 10% 11% - 20% 21% - 30% 31% - 40% > 40% Assesses the level of needs for NFI assistance

5Ws/ Sector needs assessments/ IA assessments/ PDMs/ NFI tracking sheets

% of households in need of Shelter assistance

Living standards ≤ 10% 11% - 20% 21% - 30% 31% - 40% > 40% Assesses the level of damage houses underwent during conflict or natural disaster situations

Sector/ UNHCR/ IOM/ OCHA/ Partners/ IA assessments

PEOPLE IN NEED WOMEN CHILDREN WITH DISABILITY

2.7M 58% 51% 15%VULNERABLE RESIDENTS INTERNALLY DISPLACED PEOPLE REFUGEES RETURNEES

394k 1.5M 352k 445k

14%

18%

14%24%

16%

10%4%

# OF BASIC NFI TYPES PER HH

six five four three two one none

NFI POSSESSIONS

• 61% of HH do not own solar lamps and mosquito nets

• 45% of HH do not have access to cooking fuel

• 34% of HH do not own kitchen sets

• 31% of HH do not own jerry cans

• 23% of HH do not own any type of bed or sleeping mat

SHELTER DAMAGE

• 59% of HH reported openings or cracks in the roof while 23% reported a partially collapsed roof

• 19% of HH reported some cracks in some walls while 8% of HH reported large cracks in most walls while 12% of HH reported fully collapsed walls

• 13% of HH identified as having severe structural damage while 7% of HH identified with total structural collapse

• 9% of HH reported missing windows or doors while 7% of HH reported broken exterior doors while 6% of HH reported broken or cracked windows

• 6% of HH reported damaged floors while 2% of HH reported foundation damage

32%

68%

SHELTER DAMAGE

no yes

55%

45%

URBAN VS RURAL

rural urban

16%

27%

1%14%

42%

SETTLEMENT TYPE

camp city informal settlement town village

30%

18%24%

10%

13%

5%

HLP ISSUES

Disputed ownership

Property unlawfully occupied by others

Disputes about rent between landlord and tenant

Threat of eviction/harassment by landlord or others

Inheritance issues

Lack or loss of housing land tenancy or ownershipdocuments

• Many competing Shelter and NFI needs, therefore, limited resources available only to respond to newly emerging crisis with respect to internally displaced populations, refugees, flood affected communities and returnees

• Limited access to essential services and poor infrastructure as well as lack of opportunities for durable solutions and support for the protracted caseload

• Emergency assistance over and over is unsustainable, therefore, there is a need to explore opportunities for an area-based approach

Education


3.1M PIN

--------------------

2.9M Sector PIN

246K Ref PIN

Education

Methodology

1. Calculate Percentage children ages 6-18 =

32.76%

2. Calculate total number of children as % from

total pop

3. Calculate out-of -school children: total children

- enroled children (EMIS data)

4. Add 25% to OOSC to account for an extra

grade of secondary school being added in

2022

5. Of children enrolled, calculate # at IPC 3+,

based on IPC3+ %

6. Add OOSC + IPC3+ enrolled children for PIN

7. Calculate each population group as a % of total

population

8. Divide total PIN according to population group

percentages by locality

Key findings

THANK YOU

Date post:	17-Nov-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

2022 HPC Stakeholder Engagement

Documents