Page | 1

BAIDOA WASH ASSESSMENT

IDPS FROM LOWER SHABELLE AND BAKOOL REGION

APRIL 2014

1. INTRODUCTION Between the 13th and 17th April 2014, INTERSOS (as assessment lead-agency), ACTED, GREDO, DRC,

PANA-AID and SYPD conducted a WASH assessment among IDPs in camps in Baidoa in order to have a

greater understanding about the WASH facilities currently in place and if there is any gap to be

addressed looking at the new arrival of IDPs in Baidoa due to the AMISOM/SNG offensive. The

assessment was planned, after extensive discussion with the WASH cluster coordinator who mobilized

the aforementioned WASH partners in Baidoa. The Assessment was carried out in 72 different IDP

camps in Baidoa (see paragraph 3). This report is a product of INTERSOS Humanitarian Aid Organization,

Somalia Mission, and is documentation of the findings of this assessment.

2. BACKGROUND The anticipated military offensive by the Somali National Armed Forces (SNAF) and the African Union

Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) to recover Al Shabaab controlled areas in Southern and Central Somalia

has begun. In Lower Shabelle, SNAF/AMISOM troops moved towards Qoryooley en route to Baraawe.

Some locations on the way were reportedly vacated without resistance. In Bakool, SNAF/AMISOM forces

started moving to key towns including RabDhuure, Xudur and Waajid around 5 March.

It is estimated that 3 million people live in the Districts and Regions, which may be directly affected by

the military operation. The movements were mostly preemptive and people moved due to fear of

attacks. By March, displaced people, mainly from Waajid and Xudur in Bakool and Qoryoley of Lower

Shabelle, were reported to have arrived in Baidoa. Those arriving in Baidoa said that threats by Al

Shabaab were prime motives for moving.

3. METHODOLOGY The assessment was carried out using a revised version of the WASH cluster Rapid Needs Assessment

Form.

Page | 2

The questionnaire was revised to better capture the data related to the new arrival of IDPs in Baidoa

since the aim of the exercise was to understand if the existing WASH facilities are enough to cover water

and sanitation needs of the newly arrived IDPs.

For the aforementioned reasons the questionnaire was divided in 4 different sections:

1. Demography and Background

2. WASH

3. Sanitation

4. Hygiene

For the sake of clarity we would like to point out that we use the aforementioned terms as follows:

WASH: water supply is more appropriated. In this case we refers the access to water,

considering the quantity of water, the sources, the distance from the household to nearest

water point, queuing time at a water source and the quality of water.

Sanitation: is defined as the way in which humans promote healthy living and good health by

preventing human contact with waste and other forms of microorganisms that cause disease.

Sanitation is for human waste, environmental waste, and other forms of waste. There are

different types of sanitation, we refers to basic sanitation which is the management of human

feces.

Hygiene: is defined as a cumulative group of practices that is perceived by groups of people to

be a way towards healthy living or good health. Hygiene is often associated with the human

body. We use the word “hygiene” for our body by brushing our teeth, taking a bath, and so on

and so forth. Hand washing is part of hygiene and is considered as the universal precaution in

preventing the transmission of microorganisms.

The questionnaire was designed for Focus Groups discussion with IDP and Key-Informants. In order to

have verification, especially on the information about the existing facilities, verification through

observation has been carried out for each IDP camp.

Before the assessment a meeting was organized at INTERSOS Way Station in Baidoa in order to clarify

the methodology of the assessment and to organize the team.

The assessment targeted 72 IDP camps in Baidoa. Below the list of camp and the allocation for each

NGO.

1. ADC 1 ACTED

2. ADC 2 ACTED

3. ADC 2 TOWFIIQ ACTED

4. BALADUL-AMIN 2 ACTED

5. IDAALE 1 ACTED

6. IDAALEWYN ACTED

Page | 3

7. SALAAMEY 1 ACTED

8. 11 JANAAYO ACTED

9. ADC 3 ACTED

10. GENERAL-DAUD ACTED

11. BUURFUULE 1 DRC

12. BUURFUULE 2 DRC

13. WAABERI DRC

14. YAAQDA 1 DRC

15. YAAQDA 2 DRC

16. TAWAKAL 2 DRC

17. WADAJIR 1 DRC

18. WADAJIR 2 DRC

19. WADAJIR 3 DRC

20. WARSAN DRC

21. ONADKA DRC

22. KORMARI 1 GREDO

23. KORMARI 2 GREDO

24. HANAANO 2 GREDO

25. SALAAMEY IDAALE GREDO

26. HANAANO 3 GREDO

27. WAJID GREDO

28. DUCEYSANE GREDO

29. HANAANO 1 GREDO

30. YAASIIN 1 GREDO

31. TITIIN GREDO

32. WADAJIR 4 PANA-AID

33. WADAJIR HORSEED PANA-AID

34. QASAB 2 PANA-AID

35. HORSEED 1 PANA-AID

36. DULMADIID PANA-AID

37. BAY IYO BOKOL PANA-AID

38. DOLONDOOLA PANA-AID

39. TOWFIIQ BUULINURI PANA-AID

40. BERAHANOY PANA-AID

41. TOWFIIQ 1 PANA-AID

42. MURSAL PANA-AID

43. ALLA MEGAN SYPD

44. BIBI ONE SYPD

45. DAAFUUR SALAMEY SYPD

46. EYKILABAN SYPD

47. FATHU RAHMAN SYPD

48. BUULO SHEEB 2 SYPD

49. MURSAL 2 SYPD

50. SHARIF GACMEY SYPD

Page | 4

51. ALLE QABE SYPD

52. BARWAAQO SYPD

53. TOWFIIQ BUKRIYEY SYPD

54. ABOW ASHAROW INTERSOS

55. ALLA AMIN INTERSOS

56. AL FURQAN INTERSOS

57. ALLAA WEYN INTERSOS

58. BOHOL GALLANJO INTERSOS

59. BUULO SHEEB 1 INTERSOS

60. BUUR EYLE INTERSOS

61. SHABELLE INTERSOS

62. AWAL BARWAAQO INTERSOS

63. BUULO UUSLEY 1 INTERSOS

64. BUULO UUSLEY 2 INTERSOS

65. BUULO UUSLEY 3 INTERSOS

66. YAASIIN 2 INTERSOS

67. BALADUL AMIN 1 INTERSOS

68. DAARU SALAAM INTERSOS

69. BOONKAAY INTERSOS

70. DHAAHIROW INTERSOS

71. TABAARAK INTERSOS

72. TOWHIID INTERSOS

Once data collection was finalized, questionnaires were reviewed and then processed into a database

system. Data processing, analysis and interpretation of results were done by INTERSOS at Nairobi level.

4. RESULTS

4.1 Demography From the data collected, 71% of the IDP camps are in urban setting, 7% are in rural setting while the rest

21% was unspecified.

Page | 5

The population assessed is approximately 64,000 persons of whom:

IDPs already living in the area before the AMISON offensive: 55,023

New IDPs due to AMISOM offensive: 8,460

IDPs after the AMISON offensive: 63,483

This population is composed of 23% women, 19% men, 32% girls and 26% boys.

The new IDPs here originate mainly from Bakool and Qoryoley, and they intend to stay until security is

restored in their place of origin.

4.2 Services offered and perceived needs The large majority of respondents (91%) recognized that there were services being offered by some

organizations in the camps. The top four mentioned services provided are Latrines, Hygiene Kits,

Sanitary Kits and Water.

72%

7%

21%

Camps Setting

Urban

Rural

Unspecified

23%

19% 32%

26%

Population Composition

Women

Men

Girls

Boys

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Women Men Girls Boys

Host

IDPs

Page | 6

Latrines1 were said to be provided majorly by INTERSOS, GRRN, DRC and NRC/GREEDO

1 INTERSOS provided latrines in 44 camps. This is applicable for the services provided graph, 70 means there were 70 camps where latrines

were provided.

70

48

16 15 10 10 9 7 3 3 2 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Nu

mb

er o

f C

amp

s

Services Provided

44

14

4 4 1 1 1 1

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Nu

mb

ero

f C

amp

s

Latrines Providers

Page | 7

The hygiene kits2 were said to be provided majorly by INTERSOS and DRC.

Sanitary kits3 were said to be provided by INTERSOS and ADRA.

2 The Hygiene Kits distributed includes:

4 soap,

1 mosquito net,

1 jerry can,

4 chlorine,

1 bucket,

1 basin.

3 During the interview IDPs referred that IMTERSOS gave distributed Sanitary Kits. Actually this is a misunderstanding, because what is called

Sanitary Kit is actually a Dignity Kit. This distribution took place in the past months of 2014. This activity is conducted under the Protection

department. Dignity Kit includes:

2 Dress (Dirac),

2 Shawl (Garbasar),

4 Sanitary cloth,

4 Panties (different sizes),

2 Bar soap (250 g),

2 Pack of power soap (100 g),

2 Petticoats (Gorgorat),

2 Head scarves (Shash).

0

10

20

30

40

50

DRC INTERSOS

Nu

mb

er o

f C

amp

s

Hygiene Kits Providers

1

15

0

5

10

15

20

ADRA Intersos

Nu

mb

er o

f C

amp

s

Sanitary Kits Providers

Page | 8

Water was said to be provided majorly by GRRN, COOPI, NRC/GREEDO and INTERSOS.

5. IDENTIFIED NEEDS When asked to prioritize their immediate needs, the top four items that were given first priority were

shelter, water, NFI and Plastic sheet. Shelter situation was pointed to be too bad that some pregnant

women are said to sleep under the tree for lack of shelter.

Items in priority 2 list were food, clean drinking water, shelter and sanitation.

4 4 4

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

GRRN COOPI NRC/GREEDO INTERSOS

Nu

mb

er o

f C

amp

s

Water Providers

22

15

6 6 4 4 3 3

0 5

10 15 20 25

Shelter water NFI plastic sheet Food soap Clean drinking

water

Shallow well

Priority Need 1

11

8 8 6

4 4 4 4 3 3

0 2 4 6 8

10 12

food Clean drinking

water

shelter Sanitation mosquito net

plastic sheet

soap Water latrine NFI

Priority Need 2

Page | 9

The third priority items were water, health, education and sanitation.

5.1 Water When asked how much water each household could collect per day, the following were the results.

53% said each family could collect between 30 to 60 liters a day, while 26% said it is between 60 to 90

liters a day. 10% said the families could collect less than 30 liters while 11% said they could collect more

than 90 liters a day.

16

5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

0 5

10 15 20

Priority Need 3

10%

53%

26%

11%

Water collected per family per day

Less than 30 LTR

30 to 60 LTR

60 to 90 LTR

More than 90 LTR

Page | 10

The existing water sources in the areas are unprotected shallow wells (46), boreholes (23) Shallow well

with hand pump (17), rain water catchment (2) and others (5).

Most of the shallow wells are non-functional due to drought and silting resulting to reduced storage

capacity and low yield according to the respondents. The functional water sources are therefore as

below.

24

5 2

17

46

0

10

20

30

40

50

Borehole Other Rain water catchment

Shallow Well with Hand Pump

Unprotected Shallow Well

Water Sources

23

5 2

16

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

Borehole Other Rain water catchment

Shallow Well with Hand Pump

Unprotected Shallow Well

Functional Water Sources

Page | 11

Most of the members of this population rely on the boreholes (52%) and the unprotected shallow wells

(22%).

The table below shows the average proximity of these water sources and their availability during the

year.

Water Source Average Distance to

Source (km) Months providing

water in a year

Borehole 1.67 10.10

Other 0.05 4.00

Rain water catchment 0.20 2.00

Shallow Well with Hand Pump 6.85 8.55

Unprotected Shallow Well 1.50 7.72

However 15% of the respondents said they do not have access to the water sources because they do not

have water containers and the water is also being sold. 29% of the respondents said that the people do

not have containers for water. The survey showed that averagely, each household has between one and

two 20ltr jerry cans for fetching and storing water. Many of those interviewed complained that they

have to walk long distances to fetch water. Some lamented that they do not have jerry cans for

collecting and storing water. Others said that accessing water is not easy because one has to buy and

they cannot afford it. 20Ltrs jerry can costs 2000 Somali shillings. A walk in the camps revealed that

some water sources were not in good condition and need rehabilitation.

52%

2% 5%

19% 22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Borehole Other Rain water catchment

Shallow Well with Hand

Pump

Unprotected Shallow Well

Population using source

Page | 12

5.2 Hygiene and Sanitation Only 26% of respondents said the population has access to chlorinated water while only 17% of the

respondents said the people make effort to improve the quality of their drinking water. Among those

who improve the drinking water quality, 64% use Chlorination, 73% boil water, 18% use sedimentation

and 9% use the sun. None is reported to be using any form of filtration. Interestingly, only 11% of the

respondents said they have water treatment chemicals available to them, and this is the same that use

chlorination.

When asked what they use for washing hands, 67% said they use water only, 25% said they use water

with ash, 7% said they use water with soap and 1% said they use water with sand. Only 9% of the

respondents said soap was available to them.

7% of the respondents do not wash their hands after visiting the toilet. 21% do not wash their hands

after cleaning a child’s buttocks. 75% do not wash their hands before preparing food. 17% do not wash

their hands before eating. 85% do not wash their hands before breastfeeding.

67%

25%

1%

7%

Hand Wash Agent

Water only

Water with Ash

Water with sand

Water with soap

93% 79%

25%

83%

15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

After Defacation

After Cleaning Child

Before Preparing

Food

Before Eating Before Breast Feeding

Hand Washing Time

Page | 13

According to the responses received, there are 853 latrines available for the 64000 people here. This

means each latrine should serve 75 individuals. Of this population only 23000 are reported to be using

the latrines. Most respondents pointed out that there are not enough latrines where they live and

majority of the people go to the fields for defecation. A walk in the camp revealed that some toilets

need rehabilitation and school latrines are not segregated according to sex.

6. CONCLUSION From this analysis of the IDP situation in Baidoa, we assume that the WASH situation in these camps

needs to be addressed. Although there are many agencies responding to the needs of the IDPs,

especially in WASH sector, the influx of new IDPs seem to overwhelm the available resources.

Looking at the latrines situation we assume that there was a gap even before the arrival of IDPs due to

the military offensive: for the sphere standard one latrine should serves 50 individual and with a

population of 55,500 the number of individual for latrines is 66. The new influx of 8,500 IDPs raised the

number of individual for one latrine to 75. Looking at the assessment there is an immediate need of

construction of additional 427 latrines. Increasing the number of latrines will avoid the use field for

defecation.

Another alarming result is the lack of appropriate hygiene-related behaviors:

7% of the respondents do not wash their hands after visiting the toilet

21% do not wash their hands after cleaning a child’s buttocks

75% do not wash their hands before preparing food

17% do not wash their hands before eating

85% do not wash their hands before breastfeeding.

Awareness session can be concluded with Hygiene kits distribution or soap distribution.

Moreover, will be important to increase the number of hand wash facilities, especially outside the

latrines.

From the data analysis it seems that access to water is not a problem yet since it appears that

households have access to 25 Lt. of water per day.

On the other hand the storage and the usage of water can be improved trough awareness sessions and

trough distribution of chlorine or water filters. In fact only 26% of respondents to the assessment said

the population has access to chlorinated water while only 17% of the respondents said the people make

effort to improve the quality of their drinking water. Among those who improve the drinking water

quality, 64% use Chlorination, 73% boil water, 18% use sedimentation and 9% use the sun. None is

reported to be using any form of filtration. Water filter distribution is suggested in order to increase

filtration practices.