Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH1
Quarterly IDP Camp Directory, April 2016
AFGHANISTAN
JUNE 2018
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Dry Spell Assessment
Informing
more effectivehumanitarian actionREACH
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH2
About REACH REACH is a joint initiative of two international non-governmental organizations - ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives - and the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT). REACH aims to strengthen evidence-based decision making by aid actors through efficient data collection, management and analysis before, during and after an emergency. By doing so, REACH contributes to ensuring that communities affected by emergencies receive the support they need. All REACH activities are conducted in support to and within the framework of inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information please visit our website: www.reach-initiative.org. You can contact us directly at: [email protected] and follow us on Twitter @REACH_info.
Cover photo: A drying river in Panjshir, Afghanistan © REACH, March 2018
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH3
ContentsBackground .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Rationale & Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Other WASH Assessments in ISETs.................................................................................................................... 6
Research Questions............................................................................................................................................. 7
Limitations............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Key Reported Figures & Findings....................................................................................................................... 7
Comparative Overview by District...................................................................................................................... 8
1. Badghis Province........................................................................................................................................... 10
Abkamari District............................................................................................................................................... 11
Ghormach District..............................................................................................................................................
Muqur (Badghis) District .................................................................................................................................
Murghab District................................................................................................................................................
Qadis District......................................................................................................................................................
Qala e Naw District...........................................................................................................................................
2. Balkh Province................................................................................................................................................
Charbulak District.............................................................................................................................................
Charkent District................................................................................................................................................
Chemtal District.................................................................................................................................................
Dawlatabad (Balkh) District..............................................................................................................................
Dehdadi District.................................................................................................................................................
Keshendeh District............................................................................................................................................
Khulm District....................................................................................................................................................
Mazar e Sharif District.....................................................................................................................................
Nahr e Shahi District.........................................................................................................................................
Sholgareh District.............................................................................................................................................
Zari District.........................................................................................................................................................
3. Daykundi Province..........................................................................................................................................
Ashtarlay District...............................................................................................................................................
Giti District..........................................................................................................................................................
Kajran District....................................................................................................................................................
Khadir District.................................................................................................................................................... Miramor District................................................................................................................................................ Nili District......................................................................................................................................................... Sang e Takht District........................................................................................................................................ Sharestan District..............................................................................................................................................
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH4
4. Farah Province.................................................................................................................................................
Anardara District................................................................................................................................................
Balabuluk District..............................................................................................................................................
Farah District......................................................................................................................................................
Pushtrod District................................................................................................................................................
5. Faryab Province..............................................................................................................................................
Almar District.....................................................................................................................................................
Andkhoy District................................................................................................................................................
Dawlatabad District...........................................................................................................................................
Khani Char Bagh District..................................................................................................................................
Maymana District..............................................................................................................................................
Pashtunkot District............................................................................................................................................
Qaramqol District..............................................................................................................................................
Qaysar District....................................................................................................................................................
Shirintagab District...........................................................................................................................................
6. Hilmand Province...........................................................................................................................................
Garmser District.................................................................................................................................................
Lashkar Gah District..........................................................................................................................................
Marja District.....................................................................................................................................................
Nad e Ali District...............................................................................................................................................
Nahr e Saraj District..........................................................................................................................................
Nawa e Barakzaiy District................................................................................................................................
7. Jawjan Province..............................................................................................................................................
Aqcha District....................................................................................................................................................
Fayzabad (Jawzjan) District..............................................................................................................................
Khanaqah District..............................................................................................................................................
Khwaja du Koh District..................................................................................................................................... Mardyan District................................................................................................................................................ Mingajik District................................................................................................................................................ Qushtepa District............................................................................................................................................... Shiberghan District...........................................................................................................................................
8. Nimroz Province..............................................................................................................................................
Chakhansur District...........................................................................................................................................
Charburjak District............................................................................................................................................
Delaram District.................................................................................................................................................
Khashrod District...............................................................................................................................................
Zaranj District....................................................................................................................................................
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH5
9. Saripul Province............................................................................................................................................. X
Gosfandi District................................................................................................................................................
Sancharak District.............................................................................................................................................
Saripul District ..................................................................................................................................................
Sayad District.....................................................................................................................................................
Sozmaqala District............................................................................................................................................
10. Uruzgan Province.........................................................................................................................................
Chora District.....................................................................................................................................................
Dehrawud District..............................................................................................................................................
Gizab Uruzgan District .....................................................................................................................................
Shahid e Hassas District.................................................................................................................................
Tirinkot District..................................................................................................................................................
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH6
Winter in Afghanistan is a critical period for securing successful food production and agricultural inputs for the entire year, as well as for replenishing groundwater aquifers. Compared to national multi-year averages, the winter season for 2017/2018 has been uncharacteristically dry, with below average snowfall and a precipitation deficit of up to 70%. This dry spell has affected access to livelihoods, in particular for communities relying on agriculture, and availability of water in the following months, as reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). As a result, the dry spell has compounded the vulnerability of large shares of the Afghan population, leading to a mobilisation of humanitarian actors to support the most affected population. However, limited information is available to identify vulnerable communities and areas most affected by the dry spell, especially with regards to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) concerns.
To address this information gap, REACH conducted a WASH Cluster assessment between 3 and 21 June 2018 aiming to inform the response of the Cluster for the ongoing dry spell in Afghanistan. In particular, this assessment sought to identify:
• How population groups have been affected differently by the dry spell. REACH specifically focused on urban and rural areas, Informal Settlements (ISETs) and Community Development Councils (CDCs) .• Which areas are most affected by the dry spell, to inform geographic prioritization at the district level, beyond the initial provincial-level prioritization method (see below).• The main coping mechanisms used by households to mitigate the impact of the dry spell.• The preferred modalities of response for different population groups.
Context and RationaleThe assessment focused on the 10 provinces prioritized by the WASH Cluster, where more than 25% of water sourcess have already dried or are drying as a result of the 2018 winter dry spell. Within these provinces, vulnerable locations were purposively selected across all 67 districts. All identified ISETs were included in this assessment, as access to WASH resources are traditionally limited there, while only the most vulnerable CDCs, both urban and rural, were included following a profiling exercise by WASH partners.
One Key Informant (KI) was interviewed in each community (understood as either an ISET or a CDC), using a structured questionnaire designed in collaboration with the WASH Cluster. KIs were knowledgeable community members, such as leaders, teachers and elders, identified by enumerators. Findings were then aggregated at district and province level.
In addition, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted to supplement and triangulate findings from the KI interviews. Two FGDs, one with female respondents and one with male respondents, were conducted in each province with six to eight participants in each. Participants were selected by approaching pre-existing networks of KIs and snowballing among their connections, aiming for a widespread of areas of origins. Findings from the FGDs were not used in these factsheets but will be used in the Executive Summary (forthcoming).
Methodology
1. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Afghanistan Drought Contingency Plan, April 2018. 2. FAO, Rapid Assessment of the 2018 Winter Dry Spell in Afghanistan, 2018.3. Communities with at least 50% of displaced people and no legal rights to occupy the land.4. Communities in which a democratically elected body operate to strengthen the local governance and social development of the inhabitants. ISETs are not represented in these elected bodies and are thus not included in CDCs. 5. WASH Cluster, WASH Dry Spell Contingency Plan, March 2018.6. WASH Cluster, internal document.
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH7
Research QuestionsIn order to meet aforementioned objectives, this dry spell assessment attempted to answer the following research questions, designed in close collaboration with the WASH Cluster:
• What are the districts that have been more impacted by the 2018 winter dry spell?• How has the dry spell affected population groups differently within the community, inclusive of men, women, boys and girls, as well as those dependent on agriculture or livelihoods, and in urban and rural settings? • What are the preferred modalities of assistance in the different dry-spell affected settings?• What are the current and expected coping strategies used by affected households to mitigate the implications of the dry spell?
Limitations• Findings are based on the knowledge of KIs providing information on their communities. Findings should therefore be considered indicative only.• The geographical areas included in this assessment were selected by the WASH cluster based on the proportion of drying water sources in March 2018. Other affected, but not selected, areas might be missing from this assessment. • Since data was collected at community level, and is shown at the district-level, it cannot be used for direct beneficiary selection. The findings from this assessment can be used to prioritise locations and population groups, and should be completed by beneficiary selection data collection. • Given the society structure and cultural barriers found in Afghanistan, the number of female KIs was very low, thus female-specific issues can be under-represented.
Key Reported Figures and Findings
Total # ISETs assessed: 454Est. # HHs in ISETs: 108,399
85+13+2+t 66+27+7+tYes85% 66%
2% 7%
Proportion of communities where worsened health concerns due to the dry spell were reported:
Cash assistance
Main types of emergency WASH assistance preferred by communities to cope with the dry spell:
CDCs:Dig wells
Support the quality of water
ISETs:1
2
3
Cash assistanceDig wells
Tankered water
CDCs:ISETs:
Proportion of communities where a change in the main water source used before and after the dry spell was reported:
Do not know
CDCs:ISETs:
Proportion of communities where worsened health concerns due to the dry spell were reported:
Tankered water
Main types of emergency WASH assistance preferred by communities to cope with the dry spell:
Urban:Dig wells
Cash assistance
Rural:1
2
3
Tankered waterDig wells
Cash assistance
Proportion of communities where a change in the main water source used before and after the dry spell was reported:
Total # CDCs assessed: 704Est. # HHs in CDCs: 241,887
Total # Rural Areas: 722Est. # Rural HHs: 204,187
Total # Urban Areas: 234Est. # Urban HHs: 146,099
29+71+t 16+84+tNo change29% 16%
71% 84%Change
Urban:Rural:
15+85+t 31+69+tChange15% 31%
85% 69%No change
68+26+6+t 82+16+2+t68% 82%
6% 2%
Urban:Rural:
No13% 27%
Yes
Don’t knowNo26% 16%In addition to this booklet, more information on the WASH needs
and vulnerabilities of ISET residents, can be found in the WASH and Emergency Shelter Non-Food Items (ESNFI) Needs Assessment Report (November 2017) carried out by REACH and its partners, or in the following regional factsheets:• Central Region WASH, ESNFI and FSAC needs in ISETs• North Region WASH, ESNFI and FSAC needs in ISETs• West Region WASH, ESNFI and FSAC needs in ISETs• South-East Region WASH, ESNFI and FSAC needs in ISETs
Other WASH Assessments in ISETs
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH8
Comparative Overview by District
Summary WASH Livelihoods Health Coping strategies Assistance
Prov
inces
Distr
icts
Total
estim
ated n
umbe
r of h
ouse
holds
s in
CDCs
Totta
l esti
mated
numb
er of
hous
ehold
s in I
SETs
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re a
chan
ge in
the m
ain w
ater s
ource
used
befor
e and
aft
er th
e dry
spell
was
repo
rted
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re po
pulat
ion gr
oups
have
not e
quall
y red
uced
their
wa
ter co
nsum
ption
sinc
e the
begin
ning o
f the d
ry sp
ell
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re a
decre
ase o
f the e
cono
mic w
ell-b
eing w
as re
porte
d as
a re
sult o
f the d
ry sp
ell
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
are r
epor
tedly
depe
nden
t on
agric
ultur
e
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re cr
op de
ath as
a re
sult o
f the d
ry sp
ell w
as re
porte
d, of
comm
unitie
s with
at le
ast s
ome m
embe
rs de
pend
ent o
n agr
icultu
re
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
are r
epor
tedly
depe
nden
t on
lives
tock
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re liv
eliho
od de
ath as
a re
sult o
f the d
ry sp
ell w
as
repo
rted,
of co
mmun
ities w
ith at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
depe
nden
t on l
ivesto
ck
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re w
orse
ned h
ealth
conc
erns
due t
o the
dry s
pell w
ere
repo
rted
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re m
embe
rs we
re re
porte
d to a
ctive
ly us
e cop
ing
strate
gies t
o dea
l with
a lac
k of w
ater
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
trave
lled m
ore t
han 1
km to
fet
ch w
ater, o
f com
munit
ies ac
tively
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
used
unpr
otecte
d wate
r so
urce
s, of
comm
unitie
s acti
vely
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
used
less
than
5L of
wate
r/pe
rs/da
y, of
comm
unitie
s acti
vely
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
move
d to a
nothe
r loca
tion
to se
ek w
ater, o
f com
munit
ies ac
tively
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s hav
ing re
porte
dly re
ceive
d any
huma
nitar
ian as
sistan
ce in
the
six m
onths
prior
to da
ta co
llecti
on
% of
comm
unitie
s rep
orted
ly fac
ing ba
rrier
s to r
eceiv
ing as
sistan
ce
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re ta
nker
ed w
ater w
as re
porte
d as a
n eme
rgen
cy
WAS
H ne
eds
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re ca
sh as
sistan
ce w
as re
porte
d as a
n eme
rgen
cy
WAS
H ne
ed
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re se
mi-p
erma
nent
wells
wer
e rep
orted
as an
em
erge
ncy W
ASH
need
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re w
ater t
reatm
ent w
as re
porte
d as a
n eme
rgen
cy
WAS
H ne
ed
Badghis 29943 4719 3% 0% 100% 99% 83% 100% 89% 14% 38% 69% 39% 3% 0% 49% 4% 6% 85% 9% 0%
Abkamari 2857 200 0% 0% 100% 100% 94% 100% 94% 6% 13% 100% 100% 0% 0% 69% 0% 6% 94% 0% 0%
Ghormach N/A 250 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Muqur (Badghis) 3911 312 5% 0% 100% 100% 71% 100% 95% 0% 33% 86% 29% 0% 0% 52% 0% 0% 95% 5% 0%
Murghab 15184 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 18% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Qadis 2860 120 0% 0% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 6% 63% 80% 40% 0% 0% 13% 13% 0% 94% 6% 0%
Qala e Naw 5131 3837 7% 0% 100% 97% 71% 100% 76% 34% 48% 50% 43% 2% 0% 76% 7% 17% 66% 17% 0%
Balkh 25727 28008 25% 5% 100% 66% 64% 76% 30% 80% 93% 80% 59% 25% 16% 5% 26% 18% 4% 71% 6%
Charbulak 2395 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 44% 100% 22% 89% 100% 67% 89% 1% 0% 0% 67% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Charkent 1893 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 64% 100% 29% 64% 100% 100% 100% 1% 50% 0% 36% 57% 0% 43% 0%
Chemtal 9253 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 3% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Dawlatabad 2322 N/A 0% 29% 100% 100% 100% 100% 57% 100% 100% 14% 100% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Dehdadi N/A 5002 61% 0% 100% 78% 21% 78% 21% 78% 83% 53% 40% 2% 7% 17% 17% 17% 0% 83% 0%
Keshendeh 5539 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 33% 100% 100% 67% 100% 1% 22% 0% 22% 44% 33% 22% 0%
Khulm 1457 N/A 0% 0% 100% 85% 45% 92% 0% 62% 92% 92% 8% 2% 33% 23% 62% 0% 8% 92% 0%
Mazar e Sharif N/A 11932 61% 11% 100% 28% 54% 57% 58% 76% 91% 83% 17% 4% 5% 2% 11% 4% 0% 76% 17%
Nahr e Shahi N/A 11074 13% 3% 100% 30% 22% 47% 7% 83% 90% 85% 70% 7% 4% 7% 7% 0% 0% 97% 3%
Sholgareh 1178 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 88% 100% 0% 50% 88% 100% 100% 2% 71% 0% 100% 13% 25% 38% 25%
Zari 1690 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 25% 100% 100% 88% 63% 1% 50% 0% 63% 13% 13% 75% 0%
Daykundi 27178 6766 2% 85% 100% 99% 79% 99% 4% 99% 90% 6% 1% 35% 0% 10% 77% 48% 0% 52% 0%
Ashtarlay 1242 455 0% 100% 100% 100% 79% 100% 0% 100% 93% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 71% 64% 0% 36% 0%
Giti 15381 N/A 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 42% 0% 2% 0% 0% 100% 17% 0% 83% 0%
Kajran 910 424 0% 94% 100% 100% 94% 100% 6% 100% 94% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 94% 82% 0% 18% 0%
Khadir 950 N/A 0% 88% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 88% 29% 0% 1% 0% 0% 100% 25% 0% 75% 0%
Miramor 879 483 0% 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 0% 100% 93% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 100% 40% 0% 60% 0%
Nili 1557 3037 7% 63% 100% 93% 57% 97% 10% 100% 87% 0% 4% 7% 0% 47% 33% 30% 0% 70% 0%
Sang e Takht 1799 85 0% 90% 100% 100% 80% 100% 0% 90% 100% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 90% 40% 0% 60% 0%
Shahrestan 4460 2282 3% 81% 100% 100% 70% 100% 3% 97% 81% 3% 0% 9% 0% 0% 81% 62% 0% 38% 0%
Farah 14293 10580 28% 39% 97% 82% 16% 73% 23% 84% 13% 19% 0% 4% 6% 29% 24% 24% 0% 75% 1%
Anardara 1080 N/A 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 89% 0% 11% 0%
Balabuluk 910 N/A 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 67% 0% 33% 0%
Farah 11703 10580 31% 35% 96% 78% 13% 68% 19% 90% 16% 19% 0% 4% 6% 35% 26% 19% 0% 80% 1%
Pushtrod 600 N/A 29% 0% 100% 100% 86% 100% 100% 100% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 43% 0% 0% 100% 0%
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH9
Comparative Overview by District
Summary WASH Livelihoods Health Coping strategies Assistance
Prov
inces
Distr
icts
Total
estim
ated n
umbe
r of h
ouse
holds
s in
CDCs
Totta
l esti
mated
numb
er of
hous
ehold
s in I
SETs
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re a
chan
ge in
the m
ain w
ater s
ource
used
befor
e and
aft
er th
e dry
spell
was
repo
rted
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re po
pulat
ion gr
oups
have
not e
quall
y red
uced
their
wa
ter co
nsum
ption
sinc
e the
begin
ning o
f the d
ry sp
ell
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re a
decre
ase o
f the e
cono
mic w
ell-b
eing w
as
repo
rted a
s a re
sult o
f the d
ry sp
ell
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
are r
epor
tedly
depe
nden
t on
agric
ultur
e
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re cr
op de
ath as
a re
sult o
f the d
ry sp
ell w
as re
porte
d, of
comm
unitie
s with
at le
ast s
ome m
embe
rs de
pend
ent o
n agr
icultu
re
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
are r
epor
tedly
depe
nden
t on
lives
tock
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re liv
eliho
od de
ath as
a re
sult o
f the d
ry sp
ell w
as
repo
rted,
of co
mmun
ities w
ith at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
depe
nden
t on l
ivesto
ck
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re w
orse
ned h
ealth
conc
erns
due t
o the
dry s
pell
were
repo
rted
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re m
embe
rs we
re re
porte
d to a
ctive
ly us
e cop
ing
strate
gies t
o dea
l with
a lac
k of w
ater
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
trave
lled m
ore t
han 1
km to
fet
ch w
ater, o
f com
munit
ies ac
tively
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
used
unpr
otecte
d wate
r so
urce
s, of
comm
unitie
s acti
vely
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
used
less
than
5L of
wate
r/pe
rs/da
y, of
comm
unitie
s acti
vely
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
move
d to a
nothe
r loca
tion
to se
ek w
ater, o
f com
munit
ies ac
tively
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s hav
ing re
porte
dly re
ceive
d any
huma
nitar
ian as
sistan
ce in
the
six m
onths
prior
to da
ta co
llecti
on
% of
comm
unitie
s rep
orted
ly fac
ing ba
rrier
s to r
eceiv
ing as
sistan
ce
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re ta
nker
ed w
ater w
as re
porte
d as a
n eme
rgen
cy
WAS
H ne
eds
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re ca
sh as
sistan
ce w
as re
porte
d as a
n eme
rgen
cy
WAS
H ne
ed
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re se
mi-p
erma
nent
wells
wer
e rep
orted
as an
em
erge
ncy W
ASH
need
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re w
ater t
reatm
ent w
as re
porte
d as a
n eme
rgen
cy
WAS
H ne
ed
Faryab 21598 9180 22% 30% 100% 100% 22% 100% 19% 81% 99% 95% 6% 4% 56% 0% 0% 48% 18% 34% 0%
Almar 3800 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 70% 100% 100% 10% 0% 90% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Andkhoy 2122 N/A 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 90% 90% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 70% 30% 0% 0%
Dawlatabad 2934 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 10% 0% 90% 0%
Khani Char Bagh 2924 N/A 0% 90% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0%
Maymana 9180 58% 13% 100% 100% 60% 100% 50% 60% 100% 88% 5% 3% 38% 0% 0% 33% 10% 58% 0%
Pashtunkot 1500 N/A 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 60% 1% 60% 0% 0% 20% 80% 0% 0%
Qaramqol 3720 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0%
Qaysar 650 N/A 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 67% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Shirintagab 3948 N/A 10% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 90% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Hilmand 16429 22980 4% 9% 99% 100% 21% 100% 12% 83% 52% 42% 17% 5% 67% 22% 50% 3% 39% 42% 15%
Garmser 6008 N/A 0% 30% 100% 100% 10% 100% 40% 60% 25% 60% 20% 1% 40% 0% 50% 5% 35% 55% 5%
Lashkar Gah 1078 19700 11% 4% 100% 100% 36% 100% 7% 89% 71% 35% 25% 2% 65% 64% 18% 7% 36% 36% 21%
Marja 4287 N/A 0% 6% 94% 100% 19% 100% 6% 88% 69% 36% 0% 0% 91% 0% 81% 0% 44% 38% 19%
Nad e Ali 2135 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 29% 100% 0% 86% 71% 80% 40% 0% 60% 0% 86% 0% 71% 29% 0%
Nahr e Saraj 2615 3280 5% 0% 100% 100% 10% 100% 0% 90% 30% 33% 0% 1% 50% 10% 55% 0% 35% 45% 20%
Nawa e Barakzaiy 306 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Jawzjan 19476 5394 29% 0% 98% 69% 0% 69% 0% 67% 93% 82% 72% 10% 0% 4% 0% 55% 11% 34% 1%
Aqcha 3231 N/A 44% 0% 100% 100% 0% 67% 0% 56% 89% 63% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 67% 11% 22% 0%
Fayzabad 3945 N/A 10% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 25% 90% 83% 72% 0% 0% 0% 0% 70% 25% 0% 5%
Khanaqah 3007 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 44% 89% 63% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Khwaja Du Koh 2291 305 14% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 71% 86% 67% 67% 0% 0% 29% 0% 71% 29% 0% 0%
Mardyan 1865 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 80% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Mingajik 1682 N/A 40% 0% 100% 100% 0% 60% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Qushtepa 1573 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 67% 100% 33% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 83% 17% 0% 0%
Shiberghan 1882 5089 49% 0% 95% 26% 0% 37% 0% 88% 95% 95% 95% 10% 0% 5% 0% 19% 5% 77% 0%
Nimroz 3949 2220 68% 29% 99% 100% 11% 100% 34% 6% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 70% 4% 21% 73% 1%
Chakhansur 1005 N/A 90% 20% 100% 100% 10% 100% 55% 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 75% 0% 10% 90% 0%
Charburjak 883 N/A 44% 33% 100% 100% 0% 100% 28% 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 6% 89% 0% 11% 89% 0%
Delaram 691 N/A 80% 47% 100% 100% 0% 100% 40% 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 80% 0% 27% 73% 0%
Khashrod 802 N/A 88% 38% 100% 100% 0% 100% 25% 6% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 94% 0% 6% 88% 6%
Zaranj 568 2220 43% 14% 95% 100% 38% 100% 24% 19% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% 19% 48% 33% 0%
ththhihjh
WASH Dry Spell Assessment, June 2018
Informing
more effective humanitarian actionREACH10
Summary WASH Livelihoods Health Coping strategies Assistance
Prov
inces
Distr
icts
Total
estim
ated n
umbe
r of h
ouse
holds
s in
CDCs
Totta
l esti
mated
numb
er of
hous
ehold
s in I
SETs
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re a
chan
ge in
the m
ain w
ater s
ource
used
befor
e and
aft
er th
e dry
spell
was
repo
rted
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re po
pulat
ion gr
oups
have
not e
quall
y red
uced
their
wa
ter co
nsum
ption
sinc
e the
begin
ning o
f the d
ry sp
ell
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re a
decre
ase o
f the e
cono
mic w
ell-b
eing w
as
repo
rted a
s a re
sult o
f the d
ry sp
ell
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
are r
epor
tedly
depe
nden
t on
agric
ultur
e
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re cr
op de
ath as
a re
sult o
f the d
ry sp
ell w
as re
porte
d, of
comm
unitie
s with
at le
ast s
ome m
embe
rs de
pend
ent o
n agr
icultu
re
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
are r
epor
tedly
depe
nden
t on
lives
tock
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re liv
eliho
od de
ath as
a re
sult o
f the d
ry sp
ell w
as
repo
rted,
of co
mmun
ities w
ith at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
depe
nden
t on l
ivesto
ck
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re w
orse
ned h
ealth
conc
erns
due t
o the
dry s
pell
were
repo
rted
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re m
embe
rs we
re re
porte
d to a
ctive
ly us
e cop
ing
strate
gies t
o dea
l with
a lac
k of w
ater
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
trave
lled m
ore t
han 1
km to
fet
ch w
ater, o
f com
munit
ies ac
tively
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
used
unpr
otecte
d wate
r so
urce
s, of
comm
unitie
s acti
vely
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
used
less
than
5L of
wate
r/pe
rs/da
y, of
comm
unitie
s acti
vely
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re at
leas
t som
e mem
bers
move
d to a
nothe
r loca
tion
to se
ek w
ater, o
f com
munit
ies ac
tively
using
copin
g stra
tegies
% of
comm
unitie
s hav
ing re
porte
dly re
ceive
d any
huma
nitar
ian as
sistan
ce in
the
six m
onths
prior
to da
ta co
llecti
on
% of
comm
unitie
s rep
orted
ly fac
ing ba
rrier
s to r
eceiv
ing as
sistan
ce
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re ta
nker
ed w
ater w
as re
porte
d as a
n eme
rgen
cy
WAS
H ne
eds
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re ca
sh as
sistan
ce w
as re
porte
d as a
n eme
rgen
cy
WAS
H ne
ed
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re se
mi-p
erma
nent
wells
wer
e rep
orted
as an
em
erge
ncy W
ASH
need
% of
comm
unitie
s whe
re w
ater t
reatm
ent w
as re
porte
d as a
n eme
rgen
cy
WAS
H ne
ed
Saripul 19976 8058 32% 0% 100% 99% 69% 97% 52% 87% 87% 61% 68% 14% 7% 8% 21% 3% 30% 65% 2%
Gosfandi 1937 N/A 30% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 89% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 30% 60% 10%
Sancharak 2501 515 13% 0% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 94% 94% 93% 93% 0% 0% 6% 13% 0% 50% 50% 0%
Saripul 12255 7543 41% 0% 100% 99% 53% 96% 29% 82% 84% 42% 52% 14% 11% 10% 1% 5% 20% 73% 1%
Sayad 1806 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 88% 0% 75% 25% 0%
Sozmaqala 1477 N/A 17% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% 83% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 83% 0% 50% 50% 0%
Uruzgan 63318 10494 6% 4% 100% 96% 25% 99% 11% 99% 1% 0% 100% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 78% 22%
Chora 2250 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 50% 100% 0% 100% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Dehrawud 22500 N/A 18% 29% 100% 100% 59% 100% 35% 100% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 6% 0% 0% 0% 76% 24%
Gizab 14100 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 18% 100% 9% 100% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 91% 9%
Shahid e Hassas 15300 N/A 0% 0% 100% 100% 46% 100% 8% 100% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 92% 8%
Tirinkot 9168 10494 6% 0% 100% 93% 13% 99% 6% 99% 1% 0% 100% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 74% 26%
TOTAL 241887 108399 21% 21% 99% 89% 42% 90% 27% 73% 60% 62% 38% 100% 18% 12% 28% 22% 18% 55% 5%
Comparative Overview by District