Abyan Assessment Report 8-9 July 2012

Figure : Assessed districts in Abyan governorate

2.6 Report Structure

The assessment report includes situation overview a summary analysis by problem area/sector and an analysis of the underlying causes contributing to the identified problems. It also examines and ranks the first, second and third priority problems in the assessed locations and the most affected groups within the community. It compares the results of the generalized Key Informant (KI) interviews (Module 11) with the First Level Analysis (Module 111) for similarities and discrepancies. The analysis reveals most serious problem areas and priority areas for further, in-depth assessment and for priority interventions.

The report is to be further enhanced with context level analysis by clusters and eventually given to cluster experts for designing/ updating ongoing specific sectoral response plan included under Abyan Response Plan and in line with the policy recommendations.

Frequency distribution of the problem areas identified as serious problems in each of assessed locations at the KI level is shown in Annex B to highlight the variations within and between locations.

The underlying causes of the problem areas identified as serious problems in each of the assessed locations at KI level is also shown in Annex C. This report does not contain any Secondary Data Review (SDR) in its current version.

While preparing the report and as part of the ongoing discussion with Nutrition cluster; it was realized that including nutrition cluster inputs for the IF was difficult. MIRA is designed on collecting information from the community based level; whereas, nutrition needs are information from the household level. Therefore, a section will be inserted at the end of the report for nutrition findings based on SMART tool. The other challenge was projecting findings of different governorate on Abyan. Nutrition clusters conducted SMART survey in 2012 in the following governorates in partnership with MoPHP. The governorates targeted in 2012 were: Hodeidah, Taiz, Hajja, Rayma and Lahj.

Based on discussion with nutrition cluster, the agreement was to project the findings of Lahj costal area on Abyan.

However, the discussion is ongoing with nutrition cluster on designing set of questions to be included in the future assessments.
Table : Description of MIRA assessed locations

#

Assessment Place / Area

Returnees

IDP`s

Host

Assessed Groups

Type of setting*

Major Economic Activities **

New

Old

Host Com.

Host Non

Rural Area

Urban Area

Bedouins

Marginalized

Non Abyan

C

V

M

A

G.E

L

F

SME

1

Ja`ar City / Allohom

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

2

Ja`ar City / Qaderallah

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

3

Al-Kud

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

4

Al-Musemir

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

5

Amodiah

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

6

Al-jool

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

7

Al-Rowah

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

8

Al-Mehraq

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

9

Batis

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

10

Al-Husn

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

11

Al-Makhzan

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

12

Al-Dirjaj

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

13

Ubar Othman

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

14

Zinjibar City /Limited

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Table : Locations assessed and the number of MIRA forms administered.

#	Location	District	MIRA 1	MIRA 2	MIRA 3	Total
			Number of forms Per Module
1	Allohom	Khanfar	1	3	1	5
2	Qaderallah	Khanfar	1	3	1	5
3	Al-Mehraq	Khanfar	1	4	1	6
4	Al-Makhzan	Khanfar	1	4	1	6
5	Batis	Khanfar	1	3	1	5
6	Al-Rowah	Khanfar	1	3	1	5
7	Al-Husn	Khanfar	1	3	1	5
8	Al-Kud	Khanfar	1	5	1	7
9	Al-Musemir	Khanfar	1	4	1	6
10	Al-Jool	Khanfar	1	3	1	5
11	Amodiah	Khanfar	1	4	1	6
12	Zinjibar City/Al-Asalah	Zinjibar	1	4	1	6
Total			12	43	12	67

2.7 Key Abyan Assessment Findings

1. 
   Over 70% of the problem areas were described as “serious problems” with the exception of separation from family members, being displaced from home, information, respect, moving from place to place and safety or protection from violence within the community.
   
2. 
   WASH (Water, Toilets & Keeping Clean) was identified as a “serious problem” in all of the assessed communities.
   
3. 
   Health (Health Care and Physical Care for under five years of age or over five years of age) was identified as a “serious problem” in the assessed communities.
   
4. 
   Over 80% of the assessed communities identified food as a “serious problem” in their communities.
   
5. 
   Over 70% of the communities identified income or livelihood as a “serious problem”.
   
6. 
   Distress and mental illness were also identified as “serious problems”.
   
7. 
   Surprisingly most of the protection issues were not identified by the assessment as “serious problems” except for safety and displacement from home.
   
8. 
   Most of the contributing factors relating to a problem being described as a “serious problem” attributed it to availability, followed by limited economic resources, physical/logistic constraints and security constraints.
   
9. 
   The top three most “serious problems” as identified by both Key Informants (KI) and First level Analysis (FLA) are water, food and health care with all groups equally affected.
   
10. 
    There is a high similarity between the priorities of the individual locations at the KIs level and those at the FLA with water having the highest frequency as the first priority.
    
11. 
    Although Protection was not highlighted as one of the top three priorities, however, it was more pronounced in urban areas with Qaderallah citing it as the first priority problem and Allohom & Al-Mehraq citing it as third priority problem.
    
12. 
    Education was also not cited as a first priority problem in any of the locations. However, it was cited as a second priority in Al-Makhzan and Allohom with boys & girls being most affected. As a third priority problem, it was also cited by Al-Rowah.
    
13. 
    Electricity or the lack of it was mentioned as a first priority problem in Al-Musemir, and as a second priority in Amodiah and as both second and third priorities in Zinjibar city.