Month: April 2021

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

Akobo town is located in the eastern side of Akobo County, Jonglei State, close to the land and river border crossings with Ethiopia.

Akobo is a key point of trade and transit between South Sudan and Ethiopia. Since the beginning of the crisis in 2013, this route has been used by South Sudanese heading to or coming back from refugee camps in Ethiopia. Since May 2015, REACH has been recording arrivals and departures of South Sudanese households (HHs) in four locations, Gadrang Road, Koatkoangthor Road, Tundol Port and Market Port, on a daily basis.

In order to provide an indication of wider trends, data is collected on the volume of movement, as well as on the motivations and intentions of those travelling. REACH teams interviewed arrivals and departures at the household (HH) level. For movements larger than three households, a short alternative survey is used to assess HH and individual numbers by speaking to the Transport Focal Point (TFP), such as the driver or transport authority.1 Due to insecurity and other issues, data is not always collected on a daily basis. To correct for this inconsistency, data presented for general movement trends across months represents an average based on the number of days of data collection each month. The data presented here is not representative, nor does it capture all movements in and out of Akobo. Rather, it is indicative of movement trends for the assessed population.2 The following findings are based on primary data collected between the 1st and 31st of March 2021.

Source: REACH Initiative

INTRODUCTION

In an effort to inform cash-based interventions and better understand market dynamics in South Sudan, the Joint Market Monitoring Initiative (JMMI) was created by the South Sudan Cash Working Group (CWG) in August 2019.
The initiative is guided by the JMMI Technical Working Group (JMMI-TWG), led by REACH and supported by the CWG members. The initiative is funded by World Food Programme.

Marketplaces across South Sudan are assessed on a monthly basis. In each location, field teams record prices and other market indicators through trader interviews.

This factsheet presents an overview of prices for key foods and non-food items (NFIs) in the assessed areas, as well as the costs associated with key elements of the Multi-Sector Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (MSSMEB).

Source: REACH Initiative

Executive summary

This report by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and Development Initiatives (DI) analyses humanitarian funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response in 2020. It introduces new analysis by IRC and updates previous analysis provided by DI during 2020.

Key findings

• Humanitarian funding failed to keep pace with rises in Covid-19 cases and their consequences. The impact of Covid-19 contributed to an increase in humanitarian needs by 40% over 2019’s needs, and the gap between needs and funding grew.
• A total of US$6.6 billion of humanitarian grants was contributed to the Covid-19 pandemic response, including US$3.7 billion channelled to the UN’s Global Humanitarian Response Plan (GHRP). Just 39% of the GHRP’s funding requirements were met.
• By gross volume, the three largest recipients of overall humanitarian grant support for response to Covid-19 were Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan. A small number of donors carried a large portion of the Covid-19 humanitarian funding burden, among whom the largest bilateral contributors were the US and Germany, largely mirroring previous trends for humanitarian funding.
• A humanitarian system already under strain was unable to mobilise sufficient additional resources when faced with a global shock. Covid-19 funding requirements within the GHRP were consistently less well funded than other UN appeal requirements in 2020. Of 52 countries, just 5 received more than 75% of funding required, while 12 received less than 25%.
• Just 16.5% of all humanitarian funding to Covid-19 was provided directly to nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) (international, national and local), and just 20.5% of funds provided through the GHRP were channelled to NGOs. Critically, the reported data still does not show how much funding is passed down the funding chain to front-line implementers, for example from UN agencies to international and local NGOs.
• Data reported to the UN Financial Tracking Service (FTS) and published to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) has significant gaps, creating an incomplete picture of the response. For example, data on when, where and to whom funding is committed and how quickly it is disbursed is incomplete and inconsistent.
  These gaps inhibit more effective planning and action.

Key recommendations

• Donors should provide sufficient timely, multi-year, flexible funding to meet increasing immediate and longer-term needs due to Covid-19.
• Donors should prioritise funding to front-line NGO implementers in fragile and conflict-affected contexts to ensure the response meets the needs of the most tracking the global humanitarian response to Covid-19 / devinit.org 4 vulnerable and those most likely to be left out of the response. In some fragile and conflict-affected states, NGOs provide more than 75% of the health response.2 • Donors and aid organisations should normalise increased flexibility provisions introduced in the Covid-19 response and improve the accuracy of their reporting on the duration and earmarking of funding.
• UN agencies, which received the bulk (67.3%) of humanitarian aid for the Covid-19 emergency response, should report to FTS and publish to IATI data on the funding they sub-grant to partners for a more complete picture of how and where funds are being spent.
• Donors and aid organisations should update their financial data – including the dates of commitment and disbursement – regularly and frequently. FTS should retain dates of commitment and payment in its system to improve transparency on the speed of the response.
• The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), donors and IATI publishers should prioritise improvements to interoperability between IATI and FTS, to make reporting of humanitarian financing better streamlined, consistent and efficient.

Source: International Rescue Committee

The war torn town had just started returning to normalcy as many refugee returnees from across East African region were trying to start a life. Bor is the capital town of the Great Jonglei state of South Sudan famous for being one of the areas worst affected by the war in 2013. The name Bor means ‘valley’ and not surprising that it is a flood prone area. The rains of 2020 with the support of the Nile River flooded the biggest part of Bor town displacing thousands of people. Homes, villages, schools, hospitals, markets were all flooded and livestock lost. The floodwaters have remained for the whole year deterring returnees to resettle in their homes. A few people managing to return are coming back to ruined homes still surrounded with water. The town of Bor became an Island and can only be accessed by small boats and Canoes. Only those that can afford canoe can be mobile.

I witnessed children swimming in contaminated stagnant waters. Many have been reported to drown, water bone diseases such as Acute watery Diarrhea, typhoid etc are reported at raise. Many children have been employed in canoe business of riding people across the floodwaters as a means to cater for their families.

Another rainy season for 2021 has already started and expected to intensify starting in May. A resurgence of floods has dimmed hope for children returning home and resuming school is lost.

I met Adumu Panchol a single mother of 5 children in her home she recently returned to the Nigel community of Bor. She had just repaired the roof of her house (hut) but cautious that this year’s (2021) rains are starting soon and she will be displaced again with her children. She lost all her household items to floods.

I also talked to her daughter Yom, 12 years. She says, “I lost all my books, pencils and uniforms when our house flooded. I am happy we have returned to our house”. Yom does not know that another round of floods is approaching.

While Bor is a flood prone area, the magnitude of 2020 floods that displaced over 404,000 people were unprecedented. Communities, Authorities and humanitarian actors were found unaware. The 2021 rains however are well known and the likelihood of floods is eminent, yet little has done to improve mitigation and prevention.

Homes/Houses affected by floods in Bor.

I end ended my first day disheartened, thinking about the suffering and the future of Children in Bor, as the floods would disrupt their education and their and homes were destroyed. I have worked with IDPs and refugees in over 20 countries now and I know that recurring displacement is very traumatic to children and families.

I however started my day 2 with a sense of hope, as I visited some of the flood IDP settlement in Bor. Save the Children is providing protection services such as case management and psycho-social support to children, constructed temporally learning Spaces to relocate flooded school, and proven access to safe water. I shared the pride of the save the Children’s ‘winning team’ in Bor.

Save the Children has been providing humanitarian assistance to Flood affected communities and IDPs since the onset in the areas of Child protection, Education, health, Nutrition and livelihood. SCI has relocated flooded schools to Temporally Learning Space, distributed NFIs and launched a full spectrum child protection program in Mangala IDP camp.

While responding to 2020 floods, organizations like Save the Children immediately need to raise awareness and secure funds to preposition relief assistance such as tents, food items, school items, health and nutrition supplies, and canoes to respond to the high likely floods that are likely to start in May this year.

Source: Save the Children