Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
-
DocumentPakistan. Initial Floods Emergency Response Plan August 2010 2010
Also available in:
No results found.Over the course of July and early August 2010, Pakistan experienced the worst monsoon-related floods in living memory. Heavy rainfall, flash floods and riverine floods have devastated large parts of Pakistan since the arrival of seasonal monsoon rains on 22 July. Assessments of losses and damages are ongoing, but estimates place the number of affected people at more than 14 million. Over 1,200 people have died, and at least 288,000 homes have been damaged or destroyed. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) Province, intense rains during the last week of July and in early August were compounded by the swelling of major rivers due to rainwater surging down from the highland areas. The Pakistan Meteorological Department reports that within one week in late July, KPK received 9,000 millimetres of rainfall - ten times as much as the province normally receives in the course of an entire year. Baluchistan, Pakistan-Administered Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, also experienced extreme weather, resu lting in widespread losses and damages. As the flood waters began to slowly recede in the northern provinces, rivers continued to swell to unprecedented levels and travel southwards by way of the Indus River. By early August, flood waters breached the river bank in at least eight districts of Punjab, devastating homes, and crops and livestock. At least eight million people in Punjab have been affected by the disaster. The flood wave continues to make its way through the southern province o f Sindh, where millions more are expected to suffer from the combined impact of torrential rains and unprecedented water levels in the rivers. The Government, especially deploying the Armed Forces' logistical capacity, has led the response to the disaster with the deployment of preparedness, rescue and relief actions. Hundreds of thousands have been rescued or preventively evacuated from riverine areas. In light of the devastation caused by the floods and the ongoing threat to lives and live lihoods, the Government (through its National Disaster Management Authority) requested the United Nations agencies and the humanitarian community to prepare an initial floods emergency response plan. Response Plan Key Parameters Affected population 14 million people Baluchistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas Gilgit-Baltistan Affected areas Khyber Pakthunkhwa Pakistan-Administered Kashmir Punjab Sindh Food Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Key sectors for response Health Shelter/Non-Food Items Total funding requested $459 million While the Government of Pakistan (National Disaster Management Authority and the Provincial Disaster Management Authorities) will lead the relief and recovery activities in flood-affected areas, the humanitarian community has been asked to support the response by covering gaps where the needs exceed the government’s response capacity. This means that the humanitarian community will be assisting only a portion of the overall caseload of affected peopl e, focusing on the most severely affected. The Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) expects that critical needs of the severely affected families will include food, clean drinking water and purification materials, emergency health services, tents and shelter kits, cooking sets, mosquito nets, and other non-food items (NFI). Over the medium to long term, the food security situation in the country is likely to be affected by the significant loss of crops and agricultural land. Compounding the deli very of this aid will be the issue of access to areas where destroyed infrastructure has made it impossible for aid to reach people by road. In addition, the security situation in some of the affected areas – especially parts of KPK – remains unpredictable. Considering the size of the area hit by the floods, the number of people who will be found to need assistance is expected to rise as assessments continue and access improves. The combined population of the affected districts is around 43 m illion (out of a total estimated Pakistan population of 168 million). Currently, UN agencies, NGOs and the International Organization for Migration are planning to assist vulnerable flood-affected people in up to seven different geographical areas (Baluchistan, Punjab, Federally Administered Tribal Area, Gilgit Baltistan, KPK, Pakistan-Administered Kashmir, Sindh). The emergency response plan therefore seeks US$460 million1 to enable international partners (UN organizations and non-governme ntal organizations [NGOs]) to support the Government of Pakistan in addressing the needs of flood-affected families for the duration of the immediate relief period. The plan will be revised within 30 days to reflect assessed needs as the situation evolves and will include strategies for assisting people with early recovery from the floods. -
Book (stand-alone)Comparative analysis of livelihood recovery in the post-conflict periods – Karamoja and Northern Uganda 2019
Also available in:
No results found.This paper examines the parallel but separate trajectories of peace-building, recovery and transformation that have occurred over the past 15 years in northern (Acholi and Lango sub-regions) and northeastern (Karamoja sub-region) Uganda. While keeping in mind the key differences in these areas, we highlight the similarities in the nature of recovery, the continuing challenges and the need for external actors to keep in mind the ongoing tensions and vulnerability that could undermine the tenuous peace. The initial peace processes in both northern Uganda and Karamoja were largely top-down in nature, with little participation from the affected populations. In Karamoja, the Ugandan military started a forced disarmament campaign in 2006. This was the second such effort in five years and was top-down and heavy-handed. Although many observers gave it little chance of success, by 2013 large-scale cattle raids were infrequent, and road ambushes were almost non-existent. Critically, local initiatives eventually emerged in parallel to the top-down disarmament efforts. Prime amongst these were local resolutions adopted in 2013–2014 that created a system of compensation for thefts, enforced by “peace committees.” In northern Uganda, a top-down, politically negotiated peace process between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Government of Uganda ended two decades of fighting in 2006. The internally displaced person (IDP) camps were disbanded, and thousands of displaced people returned to their rural homes, some because they no other option once assistance in the camps ceased. One of the most important factors in recovery in Karamoja has been the growth of markets. Traders were reluctant to bring wares to the region during the period of insecurity, and hence goods were few and prices high. Today, most trading centres host markets on a weekly basis, and shops have consistent inventories. In northern Uganda, the biggest driver of recovery has been the return of displaced people to their homes and the resumption of farming. By 2011, crop production had resumed its pre-conflict status as the primary livelihood in the region. In both locations, however, engagement in markets is limited, and many people remain economically marginalized. Challenges to recovery and long-term stability are similar across the two locations. Both northern Uganda and Karamoja continue to struggle with food insecurity and malnutrition, despite the massive influx of development funds, improved security and expansion of markets. In northern Uganda, the conflict continues to influence household livelihoods. Households that have a member who experienced war crimes are consistently worse off. These continuing problems with food security and nutrition call into question many assumptions about recovery and development. In particular, the idea that peace will bring a natural bounce in economic and household well-being does not appear to hold up in these cases. Additional structural challenges to recovery in both locations include climate change and environmental degradation, poor governance and corruption, limited opportunities for decent work, livelihood transformation and loss, and conflict over land. These factors reinforce each other and make it extremely difficult for average households to develop sustainable and secure livelihoods. External interventions often fail to take into account the local priorities and realities in these areas. Many programmes are place based or focus on rural areas, but the population is in flux. This is especially true for young people. In addition, while many people are doing much better than they were 15 years ago, others are being pushed out of pastoralism and are struggling to achieve diversified and sustainable livelihoods. Overall, while the recent trajectories of recovery in Karamoja and northern Uganda are remarkably similar, the context, livelihoods and challenges in each location are importantly unique. National actors should not seek to derive combined approaches or policies that lump together these two areas. In both cases, the lived reality, history and experiences of the population should be central to designing appropriate, effective and sustainable responses to the ongoing obstacles to a stable peace and full recovery. -
Brochure, flyer, fact-sheetSouth Sudan: Belgium's contribution through the Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities (SFERA) 2023
Also available in:
No results found.The outbreak of conflict in the Sudan has driven over 5.4 million people to flee in search of safety. Of this total, over 290 000 have sought refuge in South Sudan – a place many had once called home; a place many had already once fled. But refugees and returnees arrived in a fragile humanitarian situation, where a cascade of overlapping crises, have strained local communities’ access to food and basic necessities. Thanks to the generous support from the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, through the Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities, FAO is providing emergency livelihood kits to 9 000 food‑insecure returnee and host community households (54 000 people) in South Sudan to cope with strained resources, as well as boost households' agricultural and fish production. This document provides a brief description of the current context of the intervention and highlights the importance of the contribution in enhancing the resilience of the affected communities.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
No results found.