Summary

General findings:

More than 60% are below poverty line (less than 300YR a day)

26558 people were affected with AWD alone

More than 400 deaths

More than 3 million people in need in the 6 Governorates

1 million requires immediate support WATER Specific findings

54.2% population in rural areas have suffering due to water quality, diarrhea is more frequent than normal conditions whereas 36.2% reported the same in the urban areas.

In 52.8% of sites water system needs repair in rural areas whereas in 39.5% sites water systems are not functioning and needs repair in urban areas.

37.3% of the population depends rely on water trucking in the rural areas whereas average 30% rely on water trucking in the urban areas.

WATER

54.9% sites reported that water supply is not reliable in rural areas whereas 65.4% sites in urban areas suggest that water supply is not reliable.

44.7% of sites 50% of the population does not have access to protected water point in rural areas

61.6% sites in rural areas have ques and in 36.5% sites people spent more than 30 mins to fetch water. Outside sub Saharan Africa and Mangolia Yemen is the only country with these figures. ( confirms JMP2011)

SANITATION Specific Findings

In 14.8% location population exclusively defecate in open and 54% population partly defecate in open in the rural areas. In urban areas population in 2.2% sites defecate in open whereas 20.3% partly defecate in open.

In 88.5% of sites garbage is seen close to the houses in rural areas whereas 71.8% of the sites in urban areas garbage is seen close to the houses.96.3% of the sites in rural areas do not have any garbage disposal facilities whereas in 87.7% in the urban areas do not have any garbage disposal facilities.

57.7 % of sites in rural areas have pits and places where water gets accumulated and can be a threat to the vectors, also in 66.9% of the sites in urban areas also have the same issue.

HYGIENE Specific Findings

In 35.7% of sites in rural areas 50% of the population do not have soap whereas 25% of the 50% population do not have soap in urban areas.

In 56% of sites in rural areas 50% of the women do not have sanitary good whereas 46.3% of the 50% women do not have sanitary goods in urban areas.

Recommendations in order of priority

Integrated programming of Water quality, sanitation and hygiene

Point of use water quality

Soap Provision

Safe Defecation practices

Hygiene education

Water quality treatment and monitoring at Source

Sufficient Water supply Way Forward

As per initial estimates 10-15 million USD is needed for preliminary interventions

WASH cluster about to raise 3.9 million (1 million from ERF and 2.9 from CERF).

WASH cluster partners to advocate for more funds for WASH.

Chapter I. Introduction to the WASH cluster partners led assessment

1. Purpose of rapid assessment

To provide an overview of the situation in order to identify the immediate impacts, make initial estimates of the needs of the affected population for assistance, and define the priorities for humanitarian action (and funding for that action). It should also identify aspects on which more detailed follow-on assessments should focus. Emergency/affected population to be read in the following context: a. People who were affected by conflict. b. People who were affected by epidemics/outbreaks ( AWD or Cholera) c. People who lack essential WASH services. d. People who are living below the poverty line and cannot afford to buy water and practice

sanitation and hygiene. e. Pockets where malnutrition amongst the children is reported above the emergency

threshold.

2. Objective of Assessment

The objective is to answer the following core questions: a. What has happened? Is there an emergency situation and, if so, what are its key

features? b. How has the population been affected by the emergency? How many people were

affected, and where are they? c. Are interventions required to prevent further harm or loss of life? If so, what are top

priorities? d. What are continuing or emerging threats

that may escalate the emergency? e. What resources and capacities are

already present (e.g., infrastructure and institutions) that could contribute to the response, and what are the immediate capacity gaps?

f. What are the key information gaps that should be addressed in follow-up assessments?

3. Approach

a. Secondary data collection and analysis b. Primary data collection and analysis

through focus group discussion with the key informants on the sites. c. Collating secondary data with primary information: Secondary data review followed by

much focused primary data collection – provides for both speed and the level of data quality necessary for initial decision-making

d. The assessment form should be used to describe the situation and to identify priority needs for initial response at each site visited.

4. Planned Actions

a. Agreement among wash-related agencies about this assessment.

Data collection from the public health centre

b. Formation of the steering committee with consent of all WASH cluster partners chaired by the WASH cluster coordinator and co-chaired by WASH sub cluster coordinator- Aden.

c. Selection of the Government ( GARWSP and LWSC) focal point. d. To compile available (secondary) data and agree a working scenario by GARWSP Focal

point/LWSC/steering committee e. Site selection procedure with GARWSP/LWSC Team Leader with Co- Team leader in

consultation with steering committee. f. Design/customize the rapid assessment form in Arabic ; prepare related interview guides

and analysis sheets by steering committee g. Identify personnel for fieldwork by GARWSP with the Governorate Co-Team Leader

(Non GARWSP) h. Prepare maps, supplies, equipment (GPS if available) and background information kits

for field team by GARWSP in consultation with Surveillance units with MoH/WHO, Emergency Unit, Steering committee

i. Training of steering committee by WASH Cluster Coordinator.

j. Training of trainers for Co- Team Leaders/survey team trainers: in Aden by steering committee members.

k. Assemble and train fieldwork teams at each Governorates; Team Leader-GARWSP and Co- Team leader.

l. Arrange transport (including fuel), security and communications for teams- Team Leader GARWSP.

m. Inform key persons in areas to be visited by GARWSP.

n. Visits by teams to purposively-selected areas/sites to interview and collect data from officials and other key informants in administrative centers and health facilities; and interview community groups and households by Team Leader GARWSP in consultation with Co- Team Leader/ Team members

o. Entering of data (arrange for) the processing and analysis of data during and after the fieldwork by Team Leader- GARWSP in consultation with the Co-Team Leader for the Governorate.

p. Processing and analysis of data (primary and secondary) Identification of priority problems, needs, risks and gaps. Steering committee/Team Leaders/Co-Team Leader.

q. Analysis of possible strategies and development of recommendations. GARWSP Focal point/ Co-Team Leader/ Steering Committee.

r. Preparing the report. s. Disseminating the report.

5. Criteria for selection of sites The best choice in the current scenario is often 'purposive sampling' - selection according to specified criteria to represent a certain case, i.e. the extremes or the norm. The criteria to select sites will generally be the following:

a. Priority need: Very practical criteria clearly linked to programme response will guide site selection. First priority will be to assess areas in greatest need. Consider factors of vulnerability, including population size, density and influx, availability of water and food, reported epidemics or malnutrition. However, where inaccessibility is a widespread

Assessment planning workshop with WASH cluster partners

problem or coincides with very urgent needs, the extreme rapid assessment — a two-hour visit can be made to fill information gaps.

b. Gaps in existing knowledge: Cover locations about which little is known or where key information is lacking, especially where no agencies are yet working.

c. Worst-/best-case scenarios: Worst-/best-case scenarios are often used to provide some reference for interpreting data. Even if, based on the practical criteria above, sites selected are those most urgently in need of assistance, you may need some reference of comparison — the best and worst cases in areas heavily affected and in comparable unaffected areas.

6. Composition and role of the Assessment team

a. The team leader’s role was to facilitate the team’s work, manage logistics and security, and provide a contact point for Governorate-level colleagues, other field teams and local authorities. The team leader with Co- Team Leader should also ensure that the data outlined in the assessment forms are adequately collected, checked, synthesized, and promptly transmitted to the steering committee. Team Leader here will be the General Manager of GARWSP and LWSC.

b. Co- Team Leaders ensured that the survey team is properly trained and data collected is filled properly. They will verify that the data is correctly entered in the analysis charts/formats and will give initial recommendations for their Governorates in consultation with the Team Leaders. Co- Team leaders will be from humanitarian agencies. Key skills of Team/Co- team Leader: Experience in assessment; emergency assessment experience is preferred but not essential, Leadership and human relations skills. Broad public health/WASH skills and experience in operations are preferred. High level of familiarity with the assessment Tool. Familiarity with the crisis-affected areas and populations is an advantage. Community research experience and operational management skills are advantageous.

c. Composition and role of field survey team: There will be several survey teams at each Governorate level as the field work has to be completed in 5 days, in fact number of survey teams will depend on the sites chosen at the Governorate level. One survey team is expected to have 2-3 members depending on the availability. Each team is suggested to have a technical person as well as generalist (community officer). Team Leaders are encouraged to have Gender balance as women in the community play key

WASH cluster Coordinator/s

Steering committee in Aden(GARWSP and LWSC focal points, Save the Children, Oxfam, WHO,

UNICEF, IOM)

Team Leaders of the 6 Governorates- General

Managers of GARWSP/LWSC (for Aden, Lahj, Abyan, Taiz, Ibb and

Al-Dhale)

Survey Teams (2-3person/team)

A survey supervisor with survey member/s

Co- Team Leader- WASH cluster partners on site to train the survey team and

verify collected data . UNICEF, Oxfam, Save the

Children, WHO, IOM)

role when it comes to WASH. One team will be expected to cover 2 sites per day depending on the time of travel to sites. Survey team will contact the key informants, community leaders, and related government officials, community level information will be gathered through focus group discussion, observation, and household interview wherever needed. Survey forms after the survey have to be well kept till its handed over to the Team Leader. Key skills of Team Member (for data collection): Professional experience, either sector-specific. Community-level research experience is preferred. Should be drawing from the pool of qualified personnel in close proximity to the site.

d. Data Entry: Each Governorate have to enter the data collected before sending it to the steering committee.

7. Data Analysis and Reporting

This responsibility lies with the steering committee. After receiving the data from all the Governorates steering committee will meet and collate the assessment data with secondary data. Analyze the findings and draft recommendations. After that the report will be written by WASH Cluster Coordinators. The final report will be than authenticated by steering committee before it’s disseminated to others.

Chapter II. Analysis of data for 6 Governorates The assessment was carried out in the six Governorates namely Aden, Abyan, Lahj, Al- Dhale, Taiz and Ibb. 352 sites in 44 districts were reached covering 919,449 people. 219 sites were in rural areas and 133 sites were in urban areas. Numbers of district in rural areas were 30 whereas 14 in urban areas. Population reached in rural areas was 476553 and 442896 in urban areas. Key Findings

60% people in 78.8% of sites

surveyed earn less than 300 YR

per day.

44.7% of sites 50% of the population does not have access to protected water point in rural areas

54.9% sites reported that water supply is not reliable in rural areas whereas 65.4% sites in urban areas suggest that water supply is not reliable.

In 52.8% of sites water system needs repair in rural areas whereas in 39.5% sites water systems are not functioning and needs repair in urban areas.

61.6% sites in rural areas have ques and in 36.5% sites people spent more than 30 mins to fetch water. Yemen is the only region in the Middle East with these figures in competition with African countries.

37.3% of the population depends partly on water trucking in the rural areas whereas average 30% depends partly on water trucking in the urban areas.

54.2% population in rural areas have suffering due to water quality, diarrhea is more frequent than normal conditions whereas 36.2% reported the same in the urban areas.

In 35.7% of sites in rural areas 50% of the population does not have soap whereas 25% of the 50% population does not have soap in urban areas. In 56% of sites in rural areas 50% of the women do not have sanitary good whereas 46.3% of the 50% women do not have sanitary goods in urban areas.

In 14.8% location population exclusively defecate in open and 54% population partly defecate in open in the rural areas. In urban areas population in 2.2% sites defecate in open whereas 20.3% partly defecate in open.

In 88.5% of sites garbage is seen close to the houses in rural areas whereas 71.8% of the sites in urban areas garbage is seen close to the houses.96.3% of the sites in rural areas do not have any garbage disposal facilities whereas in 87.7% in the urban areas do not have any garbage disposal facilities.

57.7 % of sites in rural areas have pits and places where water gets accumulated and can be a threat to the vectors, also in 66.9% of the sites in urban areas also have the same issue.

Water supply In 44.7% of sites 50% of the population does not have access to protected water point in rural areas whereas in 17.8% of sites 50% of the population does not have access to protected water point in urban areas. 54.9% sites reported that water supply is not reliable in rural areas whereas 65.4% sites in urban areas suggest that water supply is not reliable. In 52.8% of sites water system needs repair in rural areas whereas in 39.5% sites water

Focus group discussion

systems are not functioning and needs repair in urban areas. 61.6% sites in rural areas have ques and in 36.5% sites people spent more than 30 mins to fetch water. Whereas in 31.3 sites in urban areas have ques and in 27.2% sites people spent more than 30 mins to fetch water. Water quantity: 65.7% population in the rural areas reported that water is not sufficient and 52.6% population is on less than 15litres per person per day. 82.3% in the urban areas complaint that water is not sufficient although 18.2% are on less than 15 litres per person per day. Water quality: 54.2% population in rural areas have suffering due to water quality, diarrhea is more frequent than normal conditions whereas 36.2% reported the same in the urban areas. Water in 30.4% sites in the rural areas is either muddy or smelly and in 42.4 sites people have concern on the taste. Water in 24.8% sites in the urban areas is either muddy or smelly and in 41.1% sites people have concern on the water taste. Water sources Improved (protected) Water source Piped water: 5.3% of population in rural areas is fully dependent on piped water and 19.3% population in rural areas partly depends on piped water. Whereas 46.7% population in urban areas fully depends on the piped water and 42% people depend partly. Protected well and springs: 4.8% of population in rural areas fully depend on protected well and springs although there are other protected wells and springs in 18.7% sites. In urban areas people do not depend on the protected well or springs fully although 9.5% people depend on it partly. Other Improved sources in the rural areas but only accessible to 1.9% in the rural areas and 11.21 in the urban areas. Unimproved (unprotected) water source Water trucking: 37.3% of the population depends partly on water trucking in the rural areas whereas average 30% depends partly on water trucking in the urban areas. 0.7% people exclusively depend on water trucking in the rural areas. Bore holes: 7.6% population in rural areas is fully dependent on boreholes whereas 27.5% population partly depends on these boreholes. In urban areas 3.7% people fully depend on boreholes whereas 17.5% people depend partly on boreholes. Water trucking: 0.7% rural population fully depends on water trucking whereas 37.3% partly depends on water trucking. In urban areas 0.3% people fully depend on water trucking whereas 33.6% people depend partly on water trucking. Unprotected well and springs: 15.7% of population in rural areas fully depend on unprotected well and springs although there are other unprotected wells and springs in 32.4% sites. In urban areas 4.8% people depend on the unprotected well or spring fully although 2.9% people depend on it partly. Other unprotected sources: 5.6% in the rural areas depend on the other unprotected sources and 5.4% urban population also depends on the unprotected water sources.

Hygiene In 35.7% of sites in rural areas 50% of the population does not have soap whereas 25% of the 50% population does not have soap in urban areas. In 56% of sites in rural areas 50% of the women do not have sanitary good whereas 46.3% of the 50% women do not have sanitary goods in urban areas. In 8.4% of sites in rural areas 50% of the population does not have Jerry cans whereas 36.4% of the 50% population does not have Jerry cans in urban areas. In 51.3% sites people do not have hand washing facilities close to latrines whereas 18% do not have hand washing facilities close to latrines. Sanitation Unsafe defecation practices Open defecation: In 14.8% location population exclusively defecate in open and 54% population partly defecate in open in the rural areas. In urban areas population in 2.2% sites defecate in open whereas 20.3% partly defecate in open. 1.7 % (0.6 exclusive and 1.1 partly) of sites rural population practice defecation in the managed open fields. Communal facilities: In 6.7 % of the sites population partly practices defecation in the communal facilities in the rural areas whereas 7.8% population partly practices defecation in the communal facilities in the urban areas. The communal facilities are generally found near to the mosques and are maintained by the mosque guards or cleaner. Safe defecation practices Household (family) latrines: In 27.9% location population exclusively defecate in household latrines and 40% population partly defecate in household latrines in the rural areas. In urban areas population in 70.5% sites exclusively defecate in household latrines whereas 22.2% partly defecate in household latrines. Traditional latrines (Mantolar Mokam): In 14% sites population defecate in traditional eco-friendly latrines. Access Average number of people using latrines: In 9.6% of sites in rural areas there are more than 20 user per latrines whereas in 21.1% of sites in urban areas there more than 20 user per latrines. Access by physically challenged/ handicapped people: 38.5% of sites do not have user friendly latrines for physically challenged in the rural area whereas 51.9% of sites do not have user friendly latrines for the physically challenged. In 44.4% sites in rural areas there are no lights in the toilets whereas 46.5 in urban areas do not have lights in the toilet. In 51.3% sites people do not have hand washing facilities close to latrines whereas 18% do not have hand washing facilities close to latrines. In 42.6% of sites latrines have been cleaned and maintained in rural areas whereas in urban areas 33.3 % of latrines have been cleaned and maintained, although the latrines are household latrines there is a need to sensitize the community on hygiene promotion. Solid waste and drainage In 88.5% of sites garbage is seen close to the houses in rural areas whereas 71.8% of the sites in urban areas garbage is seen close to the houses.96.3% of the sites in rural areas do not have any garbage disposal facilities whereas in 87.7% in the urban areas do not have any garbage disposal facilities. 57.7 % of sites in rural areas have pits and places where

water gets accumulated and can be a threat to the vectors, also in 66.9% of the sites in urban areas also have the same issue. Trend of Linkages with Malnutrition There is a visible trend of linkages in between people affected by acute watery diarrhea and malnutrition which clearly seems to have some linkages with no piped water supply and no hand washing facilities in the assessed location.

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

1000.0

People affected by AWD

People died

Malnutrition

no pipe water

no hand washing facilities

Abyan

Rural

Taiz

rural Ibb

Al-

Dhale Lahj

Sub

Total Aden

Abyan

Urban

Taiz

Urban

Sub Total

average

General

Number of sites surveyed 35 91 29 36 28 219 14 29 90 133 352

number of districts 7 6 6 8 5 32 9 1 4 14 46

Estimated Number of people on the sites 191759 67740 48903 50785 117366 476553 96225 50350 296321 442896 919449

Geoghraphical/topographical information

% sites on Hill top 0 25.27 10.3 27.7 12.65 5.5 1.83 7.24

% sites on Mild slope 31.4 26.3 17.2 8.3 11 18.84 42.8 60 34.27 26.55

% sites on open flat field 51.4 34 41.3 33.3 82.1 48 57.2 100 24.4 60.53 54.48

% sites on steep slope 14.2 14.2 6.8 5.5 7.1 9.56 8.8 2.93 6.25

% site in other topography 2.8 0 24.1 25 10.38 1.1 0.37 5.37

Affected population

Number of people affected by AWD 4404 8946 4451 1747 2739 22287 113 417 3741 4271 26558

Number of people died due to AWD/C 43 185 108 20 16 372 9 35 74 118 490.00

%age of Sites where 60% people earn less than 300YR/day 88 85.7 51.7 33.3 96 70.94 93 89 78 86.7 78.80

%age of Sites reported malnutrition 77 52.7 100 33.3 43 61.2 57 33.3 30.1 45.65

%age Sites do not know about malnutrition 65

Water source

%age sites with exclusively Piped water (protected) 8 4.3 14 0 0 5.3 64.2 76 0 46.7 26.00

%age Sites with part piped water supply ( protected) 0 21.9 0 38.8 35.7 19.3 35 24 67.7 42.2 30.76

%age Sites with exclusively water tankering 0 0 3.4 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0.0 0.34

%age sites with part water tankering 45.7 29.6 47.22 64.2 37.3 0 0 90 30.0 33.67

%age Sites with exclusive bore holes ( unprotected ?) 0 6.5 31.4 0 0 7.6 0 0 0 0.0 3.79

%age sites with part bore holes ( unprotected) 48 23 0 41.6 25 27.5 7.1 0 15.55 7.6 17.54

%age Sites with exlusive protected well or spring 0 0 6.8 13.88 3.5 4.8 0 0 0 0.0 2.42

%age Sites with part protected well or spring 0 21.9 0 25 46.4 18.7 7.1 8 13.3 9.5 14.06

%age Sites with exclusive unprotected well and springs 0 10.98 44.82 8.3 14.28 15.7 14.28 0 0 4.8 10.22

%age Sites with part unprotected well and springs 51.5 50.5 0 27.7 32.1 32.4 0 0 8.8 2.9 17.65

%age of sites with other improved sources (protected) 0 0 3.4 2.7 3.5 1.9 7.1 0 54.4 20.5 11.21

%age sites with other unprotected sources 8.5 19.7 5.6 15.55 5.2 5.41

Water supply

%age Sites reporting water supply not sufficient 62.8 74.7 62 61.1 68 65.7 50 100 97 82.3 74.03

%age Sites water system not working or need repairs 62.8 79 48.3 27.7 46 52.8 43 0 75.5 39.5 46.13

%age Sites reported water supply not reliable 68.5 73.6 44.8 19.4 68 54.9 14 100 82.2 65.4 60.13

%age Sites reported water is muddy or smelly 22.8 61.5 41.3 5.5 21 30.4 0 0 74.4 24.8 27.61

%age Sites reported there is concern on water taste 74.2 54.9 69 2.7 11 42.4 43 7 73.3 41.1 41.73

%age Sites reported suffering due to water ( like diahrrea) 80 70.3 50 27.7 43 54.2 0 43 65.5 36.2 45.18

%age Sites reported people get less than 15l/p/day 60 38.8 38 69.4 57 52.6 7.1 3 44.4 18.2 35.40

%age Sites reported ques for water 80 60.4 86 38.8 43 61.6 14 28 48.8 30.3 45.95

%age Sites people spending more than 30 mins in ques 60 20.8 48.2 25 28.5 36.5 0 66 15.55 27.2 31.84

%age Sites where 50% do not have access to protected water point 77 18.6 72.4 30.55 25 44.7 0 10 43.3 17.8 31.24

Hygeine

%age Sites reported 50% people do not have soap 34 29.6 51 2.7 61 35.7 0 25.5 8.5 22.08

%age Sites reported 50% women do not have sanitary goods 17.4 86 82.75 50 46 56.4 0 38.8 12.9 34.68

%age Sites reported 50% people do not have jerry cans 14.2 14 14 8.4 0 23.3 7.8 8.10

Sanitation

%age Sites reported people exclusively defecate in open 17.4 18.6 31 7 14.8 6.6 2.2 8.50

%age Sites reported people partly defecating in open 54.2 43.6 34.4 72.2 67.8 54.4 21 40 20.3 37.39

%age Sites where people defacte partly in communal facilities 5.7 17.5 3.4 7.1 6.7 23.3 7.8 7.25

%age Sites where people exclusively defecate in family latrines 28.5 30.7 27.5 27.77 25 27.9 93 83 35.5 70.5 49.20

%age Sites reporting people partly defecating in family latrines 54.2 30.7 6.8 72.2 36 40.0 21 45.5 22.2 31.07

%age sites with other options ( traditional - eco freindly) 37.9 32.1 14.0 0.0 7.00

%age Sites where toilets difficult to access by physically challenged 25.7 87.9 45 27 7.1 38.5 57 0 98.8 51.9 45.24

%age Sites reporting more than 20 users per functioning latrine >20 19.7 17.2 11.1 9.6 0 63.3 21.1 15.35

%age Sites with no light in the toilet 74.2 96 51.7 0 44.4 93 46.6 46.5 45.46

%age sites where no handwashing facilities near the latrines 77 93.4 79.3 0 7 51.3 3 51.1 18.0 34.69

%age Sites reporting latrines been cleaned and maintained 82 46 45 36 4 42.6 100 33.3 37.97

Solid waste and drainage

%age Sites reporting garbage been seen close where people stay 97.1 69.2 90 100 86 88.5 100 21 94.4 71.8 80.13

%age Sites reporting no garbage disposal facilities 100 92.3 93 100 96 96.3 93 100 70 87.7 91.96

%age Sites with pools of stagnant water near the dwelling of people 80 73.6 76 5.6 50 57.0 93 69 38.8 66.9 61.99

Description

R U R A L U R B A N

Total

average

CHAPTER 3. Analysis per Governorate and assessment tools- A

result matrix is tabulated for an easy reference and comparison of the needs in the 6 Governorates

Chapter 4. Recommendations and way forward

Recommended Interventions in order of Priority:

1. Water quality, sanitation and hygiene: An integrated approach to focus on water quality treatment and monitoring combined with awareness and availability of sanitation and basic hygiene education is the first important step to address the population with public health risks (outbreak, diarrhea, malnutrition, etc.)

2. Point of use water quality: It’s important to check water quality at the point of use, and look for solutions which can help in the safety of water at the point of use. (Like use of Ceramic filters, Household chlorine tablets, etc.) This is the second most important intervention which has to be in place in order to response to the public health risks.

3. Soap Provision: Hand washing with soap can reduce neonatal mortality by 44% and can

also reduce acute respiratory infections (ARI) by over 30% that’s how this is the 3rd most

important intervention for the affected population.

4. Safe Defecation practices: Availability of safe defecation practices (use of latrines) is important to reach out people at emergency and will be considered 4th in order of priority.

5. Hygiene education: Awareness raising as well as formal and informal hygiene education is one of the important interventions in the series and it helps where people do not have knowledge and attitude towards practicing hygiene.

6. Water quality treatment and monitoring at Source: Water supplied from any source has to be treated and monitored this is also an important intervention.

7. Sufficient Water; without sufficient water ( in emergency 15 litres/person/day) all the above will not be possible therefore it’s important to think on how the water availability can be increased to reach out the unreached.

Way Forward

As per initial estimates 10-15 million USD is needed for preliminary interventions

WASH cluster about to raise 3.9 million (1 million from ERF and 2.9 from CERF).

WASH cluster partners to advocate for more funds for WASH.

Annexes: Assessment form used for collecting information from the 352 sites in 46 districts.

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

A1. Assessment Information

1. Date of Assessment

2. Hours of visit

3. Main Contact at Site

4. Cell Number

5. Land line

6. Email

B1. Site Location

1. District

2. Group Village

3. Village

4. Site name

5. Latitude

6. Longitude

7. Nearest asphalt Road Intersection

B2. What is the geographic terrain of the site ?

1. Hilltop

2. Mild Slope

3. Open flat field

4. Steep Slope

5. Other

Specify other:

B3. What is the status of people at the site?( affected by conflict) – no need to fill if not applicable.

1. Affected community at place of origin

2. Some displaced from homes but within the location of community of origin

3. Planned site

4. Ad hoc/spontaneous site ( how far)

5. Other

Specify Other:

B4. Camp/Site/school Management- no need to fill if not applicable

1. Is there a site leader/manager

1. YES 2. NO If YES above specify

2. Name

3. Contact No.

4. Organisation

C. AFFECTED POPULATION DESCRIPTION C1. Demography of Population

1. Total Population

2. Male

3. Female

C2. Number of HH

1. Total HH

2. Average HH Size

3. Female headed HH

4. Male Headed HH

5. Child Headed HH

C3. Origin of displaced population – if applicable.

1. District

2. Traditional Authority / Location

3. Group Village

4. Village

5. Place Code

C4. How many people are DEAD due to AWD/ Cholera? (number) this year

Male Female

1. 0-5

2. 5-18

3. >18

C5. How many people are affected by AWD ? (number) this year

Male Female

1. 0-5

2. 5-18

3. >18

C6. How many HH earn less than 300 YR/Person/day?

1. 20 -30 percent %

2. 30-40 percent %

3. 40-60percent %

4. 60-80 percent %

5. More than 80%

C7. Are there reports of chronic malnutrition amongst children under 5?

1. YES 2. NO 3. Not known

C8. Are there people that need immediate special assistance?

1. YES 2. NO

C9. If YES, how many and what is needed

Need Number

1.

2.

3.

4.

C10. Source of Demographic Data

1. Site Registration List ( IDPs)

2. Estimate by local authorities

3. Estimate by affected population

4. Estimate from average HH size

5. Other

Specify Other :

B. SITE INFORMATION

G. WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE

G6. IF YES on G5, what is the average time spent in the queue? (minutes)

1.0-15 2.16-30 3.31-60 4.>61 5.DNK

G7. Households have the following available (%age of affected population)

Percentage (%)

76-100 51 -75 26-50

0-25 DNK 0

1. Soap

2. Disposable nappies

3. Sanitary goods for women

4. Personal hygiene kits

5. Jerry cans

6. Buckets

7. Other

Specify Other

G8. Where are people defecating?

1. In the open, not in a defined and managed defecation area

2. In a defined and managed defecation area

3. In public toilets (pit latrines, flushing toilets)

4. In family toilets and shared family toilets (pit latrines, pour flush toilets, flushing toilets)

5. Other

Specify other:

G9. Can toilets be easily accessed by physically challenged people?

1. YES 2. NO

G10. Number of Toilets

Functioning Not Functioning

1. Latrines

G11. Average number of users per functioning toilet

Latrines

1. < 20,

2. 21-50

3. 51-100

4. >100

5. DNK

G12. Are there separate latrines for men and women?

1. YES 2. NO

G13. Is there adequate lighting in the latrines

1. YES 2. NO

G14. Are there hand washing facilities for the latrines at the site

1. YES 2. NO

G15. Are latrines being cleared/maintained)

1. YES 2. NO

G16. 1If YES by whom?

G17. Can garbage be seen close to where people are staying?

1. YES 2. NO

G18. Are there garbage disposal facilities?

1. YES 2. NO

G19. Are there pools of stagnant water within 20m of where people are staying?

1. YES 2. NO

G1.What is the main source of drinking water- Identify top 3 Drinking Water Source

Requirement

Physical Status

Reliability

Physical Water Quality

1.Piped water supply 2.Borehole 3.Protected well/spring 4.Unprotected well/spring 5.Bowser/ tanker 6.Other improved sources 7.Other unimproved sources

1.Sufficient 2.Not sufficient 3. N/A

1.Good 2.Disrepair 3.Not working 4.DNK 5.N/A

1.Reliable 2.Not Reliable

1.clear 2.muddy 3.smelly

1

2

3

Specify other 6 :

Specify other 7 :

G2. Are there concerns on how the water tastes?

1. YES 2. NO

If YES Specify

G3. Any problems reported related to the drinking of water?

1. YES 2. NO

If YES specify

G4. How much water is available for drinking and general use to each HH

1. 0 – 7L

2. 7 – 15L

3. 15 – 25L

4. 25+

G5. Are there queues for water collection?

1. YES 2. NO