1 / 30

UN Somalia

UN Somalia. Area based Solutions analysis – Lower Juba to better and more consistently operationalize (re)integration plans based on evidence Validation workshop – Nairobi November 2016 Funded by. UN Somalia. CONTENT Durable Solutions definitions and ReDSS Solutions framework

tmerriman
Download Presentation

UN Somalia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UN Somalia Area based Solutions analysis – Lower Juba to better and more consistently operationalize (re)integration plans based on evidence Validation workshop – Nairobi November 2016 Funded by

  2. UN Somalia CONTENT • Durable Solutions definitions and ReDSS Solutions framework 2. Area based Solutions analysis – Lower Juba • Methodology • Key findings • Recommendations 3. Way forward and next steps

  3. REGIONAL DURABLE SOLUTIONS SECRETARIAT (ReDSS) • Goal: to improve programming and policy through advocacy in support of durable solutions for displacement affected communities in East and Horn of Africa • Consortium of 11 organisations • Coordination and information hub not an implementing agency that acts as a catalyst and agent provocateur to stimulate forward thinking and policy development on durable solutions in East Africa.

  4. DISPLACEMENT AFFECTED COMMUNITIES ‘Displacement affected communities’ entails all displaced populations and host communities – displaced people do not live in a vacuum Integrated and inclusive approach including access to services HOST COMMUNITIES Displaced are often hosted in underserved and marginalized areas where absorptions capacity can be limited Take into account positive and negative impact of displacement and return on the economy, environment, social cohesion and access to services of host community

  5. DEFINING DURABLE SOLUTIONS: WHEN ARE THEY ACHIEVED? A durable solution is achieved when displaced people : no longer have specific assistance and protection needs linked to their displacement can exercise their rights without discrimination resulting from their displacement

  6. 3 principles at the centre of solutions processes

  7. 3 DURABLE SOLUTIONS PROCESSES TO SUPPORT INTEGRATION • Return / voluntary repatriation • INTEGRATION • Local Integration • Relocation / Resettlement

  8. Core elements to inform Solutions planning and programing Creating durable solutions requires a multi- stakeholder and sectoral, rights and needs based programming approach The process must be viewed as a collective action rather than mandate driven based on an inclusive, participatory and consensus building approach The FGS, regional administrations and local authorities have the primary responsibility and they need to be supported to be able to play a leadership and coordinating role Developing area based Solutions analysis (localization of aid) is paramount due to limited absorption capacity, prevailing protection concerns, and persistent security and access issues. Community engagement is critical to inform reintegration analysis and programing to make solutions lasting, locally relevant and supportive of social cohesion and to adopt a ‘displacement affected communities’ approach- inclusive of returnees, IDPs and host communities Involve development actors from the start to inform medium to long term sectorial priorities complementing humanitarian interventions

  9. INDICATORS SOLUTIONS FRAMEWORK ReDSS Solutions Framework to measure progress towards integration • A rapid analytical tool to assess to what extent durable solutions have been achieved in a particular context • Inclusive/ participatory process/ consensus building • Multi actors and sectors • Operationalization of IASC framework and its 8 criteria • 31 IASC indicators organized around physical, material and legal safety • Comparison to host communities • Traffic light system

  10. REDSS FRAMEWORK : HOW DOES IT WORK? Green: DS can be achieved : Orange : Benchmark for DS has not been met Red : Benchmark are far from being met White : Data missing The objective is to improve and standardize the generation and availability of relevant data and analysis to better and more consistently operationalize joint response plans based on evidence in the search of durable solution in East Africa.

  11. ReDSS FRAMEWORK: HOW TO USE IT? • As an analytical and programmatic tool for humanitarian and development • As a joint monitoring and evaluation tool to support coordination and to identify gaps • It provides common shared overall outcomesto be used as common analysis to inform planning

  12. The solutions framework: a collaborative process

  13. KEY CHALLENGES Most data sources, measurements and ratings of the indicators reflect a context of humanitarian service provision that is determined by displacement status rather than an equal legal status to the national population. This raises questions of the ‘quality’ of durable solutions available in contexts experiencing chronic crises, specifically in comparison to areas where local standards are already low. This can confuse discussions around minimum standards where the local / host population may be worse off than displaced hosted in their area. The lack of comparative data and analysis within and across displacement affected populations, and in comparison to local populations and national standard, is a key challenge. Access to quantitative data on some indicators is really challenging due to lack of standardisation of data management and lack of a common framework.

  14. UN Somalia Area based Solutions analysis – Lower Juba • Methodology • Key findings • Recommendations Funded by

  15. Objectives and methodology Review of existing assessments, data and programs to produce Solutions framework per district to inform multi-sectorial rights and needs based plans/ programs. First ones in October/November and second one in February/ March Participatory process and consensus building approach – consultations with NGOs, clusters, humanitarian and development donors, UN, governments, etc Validations workshops to discuss and review the indicators rating, key findings and preliminary recommendations- collectivelyagree on gaps and priorities building on existing humanitarian and development programmes to address the needs of displacement affected communities Developing Area Based Joint Solutions Analysis in Somalia to inform safe and dignified (re)integration modalities is paramount to address limited absorption capacity, limited access to basic services, shelters and livelihoods opportunities, prevailing protection concerns, and persistent security, safety and access issues

  16. SOLUTIONS FRAMEWORK LOCAL INTEGRATION-RETURNEE/IDP FOCUS Lower Juba – Somalia2016Analysis of Data: All population Safety and Security Protection Social Cohesion Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling safe in their current place of residence compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have suffered violent crimes or experienced safety incidents, including Sexual Gender based Violence in the last 6 months compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face more discriminatory or arbitrary restriction of their freedom of movement based on their displacement or minority compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face any form of stigmatization (verbal violence, insults, exclusion, etc.) in their current place of residence, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling they are accepted in the community where they live compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to police and judiciary, when needed, compared to the resident population PHYSICAL SAFETY Adequate Standard of Living (Access to basic and social services) Percentage of IDPs/returnees with food consumption comparable to local population and as per international/national standards Prevalence of GAM/SAM among IDPs/returnees compared to resident population and as per national/international standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to potable water, sanitation and hygiene compared to local population and above international/national standard Percentage of IDP/returnee children with adequate access to formal education compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to health care compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to safety net interventions or receive remittances from abroad compared to local residents with comparable needs Access to Livelihoods (Job creation and income generation) MATERIAL SAFETY Percentage of IDPs/returnees who faces legal or administrative obstacles to employment or economic activity compared to resident population(Administrative obstacles exist) Unemployment among refugees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Poverty levels among IDPS/returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have access to sustainable employment conditions compared to local residents Participation in public affairs Housing, Land & Property Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have secured right to Housing, Land and Property (with documents to prove ownership/tenancy) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate housing (not overcrowded housing/shelter and/or precarious structure and/or at risk of sudden eviction) in comparison to the resident population Existence of effective and accessible mechanisms to ensure access to land and/or secure tenure Percentage of IDPs/returnees with lost HLP who have had their claims resolved, compared to the resident population Access to Effective Remedies & Justice Participation in public affairs Percentage of IDPs/returnees who accessed formal or informal/traditional justice mechanisms last time they needed it, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees involved in public decision making processes, or local reconciliation/confidence-building initiatives (e.g. local peace committees, public debates, fora, cross-community activities and others) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees participating in community or social organizations (youth / women / environmental / sports groups and others) compared to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who consider that the violations suffered have been effectively remedied and a sense of justice restored, compared to local population Existence of accessible mechanisms that have the legal mandate and actual capacity to provide IDPs/returnees with effective remedies for violations suffered, including violations committed by non-state actors IDPs/returnees face no legal or administrative obstacles that prevent them from voting, being elected or working in public service compared with resident population LEGAL SAFETY Access to Documentation All indicators refer to the attainment of benchmarks for a refugee / returnee in comparison to the host community The indicator is well on the way to being achieved Some obstacles exist and the indicator has not been fully met The indicator is far from met Data unavailable Incomplete data exists Percentage of IDPs/returnees without birth certificates, national ID cards or other personal documents relevant to the local context compared to resident population or national average, as appropriate Existence and effective accessibility of mechanisms to obtain/replace documents for IDPs/returnees bearing in mind the local context Family Reunification The number of unaccompanied and separated IDPs/returnee children for whom a best interest determination is needed but has not been conducted Accessible and efficient mechanisms have been put in place to reunite IDP/returnee separated family members The number of IDP/returnee children or other dependent persons who have not yet been reunited with their families relative to total displaced population size The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) operationalized the IASC Framework for Durable Solutions for IDPs to develop the ReDSS Solutions framework for displacement affected communities. It comprises the 8 IASC criteria using 31 IASC indicators organized around physical, material and legal safety to measure durable solutions achievements in a particular context. The framework analysis serves as an evidence base to enable relevant stakeholders to work more effectively and consistently in the search and realization of durable solutions. This info graphic offers a snapshot in time to assess to what extent local integration for returnees and IDPs in Somalia have been achieved.

  17. SOLUTIONS FRAMEWORK LOCAL INTEGRATION-RETURNEE/IDP FOCUS Lower Juba – Somalia2016Analysis of Data: IPDs Protection Safety and Security Social Cohesion Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have suffered violent crimes or experienced safety incidents, including Sexual Gender based Violence in the last 6 months compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face more discriminatory or arbitrary restriction of their freedom of movement based on their displacement or minority compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling safe in their current place of residence compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face any form of stigmatization (verbal violence, insults, exclusion, etc.) in their current place of residence, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling they are accepted in the community where they live compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to police and judiciary, when needed, compared to the resident population PHYSICAL SAFETY Adequate Standard of Living (Access to basic and social services) Percentage of IDPs/returnees with food consumption comparable to local population and as per international/national standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to potable water, sanitation and hygiene compared to local population and above international/national standard Percentage of IDP/returnee children with adequate access to formal education compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Prevalence of GAM/SAM among IDPs/returnees compared to resident population and as per national/international standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to health care compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to safety net interventions or receive remittances from abroad compared to local residents with comparable needs Access to Livelihoods (Job creation and income generation) MATERIAL SAFETY Percentage of IDPs/returnees who faces legal or administrative obstacles to employment or economic activity compared to resident population(Administrative obstacles exist) Unemployment among refugees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Poverty levels among IDPS/returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have access to sustainable employment conditions compared to local residents Participation in public affairs Housing, Land & Property Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate housing (not overcrowded housing/shelter and/or precarious structure and/or at risk of sudden eviction) in comparison to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have secured right to Housing, Land and Property (with documents to prove ownership/tenancy) compared to resident population Existence of effective and accessible mechanisms to ensure access to land and/or secure tenure Percentage of IDPs/returnees with lost HLP who have had their claims resolved, compared to the resident population Access to Effective Remedies & Justice Participation in public affairs Percentage of IDPs/returnees who accessed formal or informal/traditional justice mechanisms last time they needed it, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees involved in public decision making processes, or local reconciliation/confidence-building initiatives (e.g. local peace committees, public debates, fora, cross-community activities and others) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees participating in community or social organizations (youth / women / environmental / sports groups and others) compared to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who consider that the violations suffered have been effectively remedied and a sense of justice restored, compared to local population Existence of accessible mechanisms that have the legal mandate and actual capacity to provide IDPs/returnees with effective remedies for violations suffered, including violations committed by non-state actors IDPs/returnees face no legal or administrative obstacles that prevent them from voting, being elected or working in public service compared with resident population LEGAL SAFETY Access to Documentation All indicators refer to the attainment of benchmarks for a refugee / returnee in comparison to the host community The indicator is well on the way to being achieved Some obstacles exist and the indicator has not been fully met The indicator is far from met Data unavailable Incomplete data exists Percentage of IDPs/returnees without birth certificates, national ID cards or other personal documents relevant to the local context compared to resident population or national average, as appropriate Existence and effective accessibility of mechanisms to obtain/replace documents for IDPs/returnees bearing in mind the local context Family Reunification The number of unaccompanied and separated IDPs/returnee children for whom a best interest determination is needed but has not been conducted Accessible and efficient mechanisms have been put in place to reunite IDP/returnee separated family members The number of IDP/returnee children or other dependent persons who have not yet been reunited with their families relative to total displaced population size The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) operationalized the IASC Framework for Durable Solutions for IDPs to develop the ReDSS Solutions framework for displacement affected communities. It comprises the 8 IASC criteria using 31 IASC indicators organized around physical, material and legal safety to measure durable solutions achievements in a particular context. The framework analysis serves as an evidence base to enable relevant stakeholders to work more effectively and consistently in the search and realization of durable solutions. This info graphic offers a snapshot in time to assess to what extent local integration for returnees and IDPs in Somalia have been achieved.

  18. SOLUTIONS FRAMEWORK LOCAL INTEGRATION-RETURNEE/IDP FOCUS Lower Juba – Somalia2016Analysis of Data: Returnees Protection Safety and Security Social Cohesion Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have suffered violent crimes or experienced safety incidents, including Sexual Gender based Violence in the last 6 months compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face more discriminatory or arbitrary restriction of their freedom of movement based on their displacement or minority compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling safe in their current place of residence compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face any form of stigmatization (verbal violence, insults, exclusion, etc.) in their current place of residence, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling they are accepted in the community where they live compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to police and judiciary, when needed, compared to the resident population PHYSICAL SAFETY Adequate Standard of Living (Access to basic and social services) Percentage of IDPs/returnees with food consumption comparable to local population and as per international/national standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to potable water, sanitation and hygiene compared to local population and above international/national standard Percentage of IDP/returnee children with adequate access to formal education compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Prevalence of GAM/SAM among IDPs/returnees compared to resident population and as per national/international standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to health care compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to safety net interventions or receive remittances from abroad compared to local residents with comparable needs Access to Livelihoods (Job creation and income generation) MATERIAL SAFETY Percentage of IDPs/returnees who faces legal or administrative obstacles to employment or economic activity compared to resident population(Administrative obstacles exist) Unemployment among returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Poverty levels among IDPS/returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have access to sustainable employment conditions compared to local residents Participation in public affairs Housing, Land & Property Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate housing (not overcrowded housing/shelter and/or precarious structure and/or at risk of sudden eviction) in comparison to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have secured right to Housing, Land and Property (with documents to prove ownership/tenancy) compared to resident population Existence of effective and accessible mechanisms to ensure access to land and/or secure tenure Percentage of IDPs/returnees with lost HLP who have had their claims resolved, compared to the resident population Access to Effective Remedies & Justice Participation in public affairs Percentage of IDPs/returnees who accessed formal or informal/traditional justice mechanisms last time they needed it, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees involved in public decision making processes, or local reconciliation/confidence-building initiatives (e.g. local peace committees, public debates, fora, cross-community activities and others) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees participating in community or social organizations (youth / women / environmental / sports groups and others) compared to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who consider that the violations suffered have been effectively remedied and a sense of justice restored, compared to local population Existence of accessible mechanisms that have the legal mandate and actual capacity to provide IDPs/returnees with effective remedies for violations suffered, including violations committed by non-state actors IDPs/returnees face no legal or administrative obstacles that prevent them from voting, being elected or working in public service compared with resident population LEGAL SAFETY Access to Documentation All indicators refer to the attainment of benchmarks for a refugee / returnee in comparison to the host community The indicator is well on the way to being achieved Some obstacles exist and the indicator has not been fully met The indicator is far from met Data unavailable Incomplete data exists Percentage of IDPs/returnees without birth certificates, national ID cards or other personal documents relevant to the local context compared to resident population or national average, as appropriate Existence and effective accessibility of mechanisms to obtain/replace documents for IDPs/returnees bearing in mind the local context Family Reunification The number of unaccompanied and separated IDPs/returnee children for whom a best interest determination is needed but has not been conducted Accessible and efficient mechanisms have been put in place to reunite IDP/returnee separated family members The number of IDP/returnee children or other dependent persons who have not yet been reunited with their families relative to total displaced population size The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) operationalized the IASC Framework for Durable Solutions for IDPs to develop the ReDSS Solutions framework for displacement affected communities. It comprises the 8 IASC criteria using 31 IASC indicators organized around physical, material and legal safety to measure durable solutions achievements in a particular context. The framework analysis serves as an evidence base to enable relevant stakeholders to work more effectively and consistently in the search and realization of durable solutions. This info graphic offers a snapshot in time to assess to what extent local integration for returnees and IDPs in Somalia have been achieved.

  19. SOLUTIONS FRAMEWORK LOCAL INTEGRATION-RETURNEES/IDP FOCUS Lower Juba – Somalia2016Mapping of interventions Protection Safety and Security Social Cohesion Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have suffered violent crimes or experienced safety incidents, including Sexual Gender based Violence in the last 6 months compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face more discriminatory or arbitrary restriction of their freedom of movement based on their displacement or minority compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to police and judiciary, when needed, compared to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling safe in their current place of residence compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face any form of stigmatization (verbal violence, insults, exclusion, etc.) in their current place of residence, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling they are accepted in the community where they live compared to resident population PHYSICAL SAFETY Adequate Standard of Living (Access to basic and social services) Percentage of IDPs/returnees with food consumption comparable to local population and as per international/national standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to potable water, sanitation and hygiene compared to local population and above international/national standard Percentage of IDP/returnee children with adequate access to formal education compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Prevalence of GAM/SAM among IDPs/returnees compared to resident population and as per national/international standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to health care compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to safety net interventions or receive remittances from abroad compared to local residents with comparable needs Access to Livelihoods (Job creation and income generation) MATERIAL SAFETY Unemployment among returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have access to sustainable employment conditions compared to local residents Poverty levels among IDPS/returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who faces legal or administrative obstacles to employment or economic activity compared to resident population Participation in public affairs Housing, Land & Property Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have secured right to Housing, Land and Property (with documents to prove ownership/tenancy) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate housing (not overcrowded housing/shelter and/or precarious structure and/or at risk of sudden eviction) in comparison to the resident population Existence of effective and accessible mechanisms to ensure access to land and/or secure tenure Percentage of IDPs/returnees with lost HLP who have had their claims resolved, compared to the resident population Access to Effective Remedies & Justice Participation in public affairs Percentage of IDPs/returnees who accessed formal or informal/traditional justice mechanisms last time they needed it, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees involved in public decision making processes, or local reconciliation/confidence-building initiatives (e.g. local peace committees, public debates, fora, cross-community activities and others) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees participating in community or social organizations (youth / women / environmental / sports groups and others) compared to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who consider that the violations suffered have been effectively remedied and a sense of justice restored, compared to local population Existence of accessible mechanisms that have the legal mandate and actual capacity to provide IDPs/returnees with effective remedies for violations suffered, including violations committed by non-state actors IDPs/returnees face no legal or administrative obstacles that prevent them from voting, being elected or working in public service compared with resident population LEGAL SAFETY Access to Documentation All indicators refer to the attainment of benchmarks for a refugee / returnee in comparison to the host community The indicator is well on the way to being achieved Some obstacles exist and the indicator has not been fully met The indicator is far from met Data unavailable Incomplete data exists Percentage of IDPs/returnees without birth certificates, national ID cards or other personal documents relevant to the local context compared to resident population or national average, as appropriate Existence and effective accessibility of mechanisms to obtain/replace documents for IDPs/returnees bearing in mind the local context Family Reunification The number of unaccompanied and separated IDPs/returnee children for whom a best interest determination is needed but has not been conducted Accessible and efficient mechanisms have been put in place to reunite IDP/returnee separated family members The number of IDP/returnee children or other dependent persons who have not yet been reunited with their families relative to total displaced population size The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) operationalized the IASC Framework for Durable Solutions for IDPs to develop the ReDSS Solutions framework for displacement affected communities. It comprises the 8 IASC criteria using 31 IASC indicators organized around physical, material and legal safety to measure durable solutions achievements in a particular context. The framework analysis serves as an evidence base to enable relevant stakeholders to work more effectively and consistently in the search and realization of durable solutions. This info graphic offers a snapshot in time to assess to what extent local integration for returnees and IDPs in Somalia have been achieved. * This indicator has been added after the consultation in Kismayo. It replaces a previous indicator on legal or administrative obstacles preventing IDPs/returnees children from going to school

  20. SOLUTIONS FRAMEWORK LOCAL INTEGRATION-RETURNEE/IDP FOCUS Lower Juba – Somalia2016Consultation in Kismayo Protection Safety and Security Social Cohesion Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face any form of stigmatization (verbal violence, insults, exclusion, etc.) in their current place of residence, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have suffered violent crimes or experienced safety incidents, including Sexual Gender based Violence in the last 6 months compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face more discriminatory or arbitrary restriction of their freedom of movement based on their displacement or minority compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling safe in their current place of residence compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling they are accepted in the community where they live compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to police and judiciary, when needed, compared to the resident population PHYSICAL SAFETY Adequate Standard of Living (Access to basic and social services) Percentage of IDPs/returnees with food consumption comparable to local population and as per international/national standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to potable water, sanitation and hygiene compared to local population and above international/national standard Percentage of IDP/returnee children with adequate access to formal education compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Prevalence of GAM/SAM among IDPs/returnees compared to resident population and as per national/international standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to health care compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to safety net interventions or receive remittances from abroad compared to local residents with comparable needs Access to Livelihoods (Job creation and income generation) MATERIAL SAFETY Unemployment among returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have access to sustainable employment conditions compared to local residents Poverty levels among IDPS/returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who faces legal or administrative obstacles to employment or economic activity compared to resident population Participation in public affairs Housing, Land & Property Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate housing (not overcrowded housing/shelter and/or precarious structure and/or at risk of sudden eviction) in comparison to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have secured right to Housing, Land and Property (with documents to prove ownership/tenancy) compared to resident population Existence of effective and accessible mechanisms to ensure access to land and/or secure tenure Percentage of IDPs/returnees with lost HLP who have had their claims resolved, compared to the resident population Access to Effective Remedies & Justice Participation in public affairs Percentage of IDPs/returnees who accessed formal or informal/traditional justice mechanisms last time they needed it, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees involved in public decision making processes, or local reconciliation/confidence-building initiatives (e.g. local peace committees, public debates, fora, cross-community activities and others) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees participating in community or social organizations (youth / women / environmental / sports groups and others) compared to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who consider that the violations suffered have been effectively remedied and a sense of justice restored, compared to local population Existence of accessible mechanisms that have the legal mandate and actual capacity to provide IDPs/returnees with effective remedies for violations suffered, including violations committed by non-state actors IDPs/returnees face no legal or administrative obstacles that prevent them from voting, being elected or working in public service compared with resident population LEGAL SAFETY Access to Documentation All indicators refer to the attainment of benchmarks for a refugee / returnee in comparison to the host community The indicator is well on the way to being achieved Some obstacles exist and the indicator has not been fully met The indicator is far from met Data unavailable Incomplete data exists Percentage of IDPs/returnees without birth certificates, national ID cards or other personal documents relevant to the local context compared to resident population or national average, as appropriate Existence and effective accessibility of mechanisms to obtain/replace documents for IDPs/returnees bearing in mind the local context Family Reunification The number of unaccompanied and separated IDPs/returnee children for whom a best interest determination is needed but has not been conducted Accessible and efficient mechanisms have been put in place to reunite IDP/returnee separated family members The number of IDP/returnee children or other dependent persons who have not yet been reunited with their families relative to total displaced population size The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) operationalized the IASC Framework for Durable Solutions for IDPs to develop the ReDSS Solutions framework for displacement affected communities. It comprises the 8 IASC criteria using 31 IASC indicators organized around physical, material and legal safety to measure durable solutions achievements in a particular context. The framework analysis serves as an evidence base to enable relevant stakeholders to work more effectively and consistently in the search and realization of durable solutions. This info graphic offers a snapshot in time to assess to what extent local integration for returnees and IDPs in Somalia have been achieved.

  21. SOLUTIONS FRAMEWORK LOCAL INTEGRATION-RETURNEE/IDP FOCUS Lower Juba – Somalia2016Technical validation Protection Safety and Security Social Cohesion Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have suffered violent crimes or experienced safety incidents, including Sexual Gender based Violence in the last 6 months compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face more discriminatory or arbitrary restriction of their freedom of movement based on their displacement or minority compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling safe in their current place of residence compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face any form of stigmatization (verbal violence, insults, exclusion, etc.) in their current place of residence, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling they are accepted in the community where they live compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to police and judiciary, when needed, compared to the resident population PHYSICAL SAFETY Adequate Standard of Living (Access to basic and social services) Percentage of IDPs/returnees with food consumption comparable to local population and as per international/national standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to potable water, sanitation and hygiene compared to local population and above international/national standard Percentage of IDP/returnee children with adequate access to formal education compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Prevalence of GAM/SAM among IDPs/returnees compared to resident population and as per national/international standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to health care compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to safety net interventions or receive remittances from abroad compared to local residents with comparable needs Access to Livelihoods (Job creation and income generation) MATERIAL SAFETY Unemployment among returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have access to sustainable employment conditions compared to local residents Poverty levels among IDPS/returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who faces legal or administrative obstacles to employment or economic activity compared to resident population Participation in public affairs Housing, Land & Property Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have secured right to Housing, Land and Property (with documents to prove ownership/tenancy) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate housing (not overcrowded housing/shelter and/or precarious structure and/or at risk of sudden eviction) in comparison to the resident population Existence of effective and accessible mechanisms to ensure access to land and/or secure tenure Percentage of IDPs/returnees with lost HLP who have had their claims resolved, compared to the resident population Access to Effective Remedies & Justice Participation in public affairs Percentage of IDPs/returnees who accessed formal or informal/traditional justice mechanisms last time they needed it, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees involved in public decision making processes, or local reconciliation/confidence-building initiatives (e.g. local peace committees, public debates, fora, cross-community activities and others) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees participating in community or social organizations (youth / women / environmental / sports groups and others) compared to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who consider that the violations suffered have been effectively remedied and a sense of justice restored, compared to local population Existence of accessible mechanisms that have the legal mandate and actual capacity to provide IDPs/returnees with effective remedies for violations suffered, including violations committed by non-state actors IDPs/returnees face no legal or administrative obstacles that prevent them from voting, being elected or working in public service compared with resident population LEGAL SAFETY Access to Documentation All indicators refer to the attainment of benchmarks for a refugee / returnee in comparison to the host community The indicator is well on the way to being achieved Some obstacles exist and the indicator has not been fully met The indicator is far from met Data unavailable Incomplete data exists Percentage of IDPs/returnees without birth certificates, national ID cards or other personal documents relevant to the local context compared to resident population or national average, as appropriate Existence and effective accessibility of mechanisms to obtain/replace documents for IDPs/returnees bearing in mind the local context Family Reunification The number of unaccompanied and separated IDPs/returnee children for whom a best interest determination is needed but has not been conducted Accessible and efficient mechanisms have been put in place to reunite IDP/returnee separated family members The number of IDP/returnee children or other dependent persons who have not yet been reunited with their families relative to total displaced population size The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) operationalized the IASC Framework for Durable Solutions for IDPs to develop the ReDSS Solutions framework for displacement affected communities. It comprises the 8 IASC criteria using 31 IASC indicators organized around physical, material and legal safety to measure durable solutions achievements in a particular context. The framework analysis serves as an evidence base to enable relevant stakeholders to work more effectively and consistently in the search and realization of durable solutions. This info graphic offers a snapshot in time to assess to what extent local integration for returnees and IDPs in Somalia have been achieved.

  22. SOLUTIONS FRAMEWORK LOCAL INTEGRATION-RETURNEE/IDP FOCUS Lower Juba – Somalia2016Overall Rating Protection Safety and Security Social Cohesion Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have suffered violent crimes or experienced safety incidents, including Sexual Gender based Violence in the last 6 months compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face more discriminatory or arbitrary restriction of their freedom of movement based on their displacement or minority compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling safe in their current place of residence compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face any form of stigmatization (verbal violence, insults, exclusion, etc.) in their current place of residence, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling they are accepted in the community where they live compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to police and judiciary, when needed, compared to the resident population PHYSICAL SAFETY Adequate Standard of Living (Access to basic and social services) Percentage of IDPs/returnees with food consumption comparable to local population and as per international/national standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to potable water, sanitation and hygiene compared to local population and as per international/national standard Percentage of IDP/returnee children with adequate access to formal education compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Prevalence of GAM/SAM among IDPs/returnees compared to resident population and as per national/international standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to health care compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to safety net interventions or receive remittances from abroad compared to local residents with comparable needs Access to Livelihoods (Job creation and income generation) MATERIAL SAFETY Unemployment among returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have access to sustainable employment conditions compared to local residents Poverty levels among IDPS/returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who faces legal or administrative obstacles to employment or economic activity compared to resident population Participation in public affairs Housing, Land & Property Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have secured right to Housing, Land and Property (with documents to prove ownership/tenancy) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate housing (not overcrowded housing/shelter and/or precarious structure and/or at risk of sudden eviction) in comparison to the resident population Existence of effective and accessible mechanisms to ensure access to land and/or secure tenure Percentage of IDPs/returnees with lost HLP who have had their claims resolved, compared to the resident population Access to Effective Remedies & Justice Participation in public affairs Percentage of IDPs/returnees who accessed formal or informal/traditional justice mechanisms last time they needed it, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees involved in public decision making processes, or local reconciliation/confidence-building initiatives (e.g. local peace committees, public debates, fora, cross-community activities and others) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees participating in community or social organizations (youth / women / environmental / sports groups and others) compared to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who consider that the violations suffered have been effectively remedied and a sense of justice restored, compared to local population Existence of accessible mechanisms that have the legal mandate and actual capacity to provide IDPs/returnees with effective remedies for violations suffered, including violations committed by non-state actors IDPs/returnees face no legal or administrative obstacles that prevent them from voting, being elected or working in public service compared with resident population LEGAL SAFETY Access to Documentation All indicators refer to the attainment of benchmarks for a refugee / returnee in comparison to the host community The indicator is well on the way to being achieved Some obstacles exist and the indicator has not been fully met The indicator is far from met Data unavailable Incomplete data exists Percentage of IDPs/returnees without birth certificates, national ID cards or other personal documents relevant to the local context compared to resident population or national average, as appropriate Existence and effective accessibility of mechanisms to obtain/replace documents for IDPs/returnees bearing in mind the local context Family Reunification The number of unaccompanied and separated IDPs/returnee children for whom a best interest determination is needed but has not been conducted Accessible and efficient mechanisms have been put in place to reunite IDP/returnee separated family members The number of IDP/returnee children or other dependent persons who have not yet been reunited with their families relative to total displaced population size The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) operationalized the IASC Framework for Durable Solutions for IDPs to develop the ReDSS Solutions framework for displacement affected communities. It comprises the 8 IASC criteria using 31 IASC indicators organized around physical, material and legal safety to measure durable solutions achievements in a particular context. The framework analysis serves as an evidence base to enable relevant stakeholders to work more effectively and consistently in the search and realization of durable solutions. This info graphic offers a snapshot in time to assess to what extent local integration for returnees and IDPs in Somalia have been achieved.

  23. SOLUTIONS FRAMEWORK LOCAL INTEGRATION-RETURNEE/IDP FOCUS Lower Juba – Somalia2016 Projections for 2017 Protection Safety and Security Social Cohesion Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have suffered violent crimes or experienced safety incidents, including Sexual Gender based Violence in the last 6 months compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face any form of stigmatization (verbal violence, insults, exclusion, etc.) in their current place of residence, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling they are accepted in the community where they live compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees feeling safe in their current place of residence compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who do not face more discriminatory or arbitrary restriction of their freedom of movement based on their displacement or minority compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to police and judiciary, when needed, compared to the resident population PHYSICAL SAFETY Adequate Standard of Living (Access to basic and social services) Percentage of IDPs/returnees with food consumption comparable to local population and as per international/national standards Prevalence of GAM/SAM among IDPs/returnees compared to resident population and as per national/international standards Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to potable water, sanitation and hygiene compared to local population and above international/national standard Percentage of IDP/returnee children with adequate access to formal education compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate access to health care compared to resident population or national average as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have adequate access to safety net interventions or receive remittances from abroad compared to local residents with comparable needs Access to Livelihoods (Job creation and income generation) MATERIAL SAFETY Percentage of IDPs/returnees who faces legal or administrative obstacles to employment or economic activity compared to resident population Unemployment among returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have access to sustainable employment conditions compared to local residents Poverty levels among IDPS/returnees compared to the resident population, the situation before displacement or the national average, as appropriate Housing, Land & Property Percentage of IDPs/returnees who have secured right to Housing, Land and Property (with documents to prove ownership/tenancy) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees with adequate housing (not overcrowded housing/shelter and/or precarious structure and/or at risk of sudden eviction) in comparison to the resident population Existence of effective and accessible mechanisms to ensure access to land and/or secure tenure Percentage of IDPs/returnees with lost HLP who have had their claims resolved, compared to the resident population Access to Effective Remedies & Justice Participation in public affairs Percentage of IDPs/returnees who accessed formal or informal/traditional justice mechanisms last time they needed it, compared to local population Percentage of IDPs/returnees involved in public decision making processes, or local reconciliation/confidence-building initiatives (e.g. local peace committees, public debates, fora, cross-community activities and others) compared to resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees participating in community or social organizations (youth / women / environmental / sports groups and others) compared to the resident population Percentage of IDPs/returnees who consider that the violations suffered have been effectively remedied and a sense of justice restored, compared to local population Existence of accessible mechanisms that have the legal mandate and actual capacity to provide IDPs/returnees with effective remedies for violations suffered, including violations committed by non-state actors IDPs/returnees face no legal or administrative obstacles that prevent them from voting, being elected or working in public service compared with resident population LEGAL SAFETY Access to Documentation All indicators refer to the attainment of benchmarks for a refugee / returnee in comparison to the host community The indicator is well on the way to being achieved Some obstacles exist and the indicator has not been fully met The indicator is far from met Data unavailable Incomplete data exists Percentage of IDPs/returnees without birth certificates, national ID cards or other personal documents relevant to the local context compared to resident population or national average, as appropriate Existence and effective accessibility of mechanisms to obtain/replace documents for IDPs/returnees bearing in mind the local context Family Reunification The number of unaccompanied and separated IDPs/returnee children for whom a best interest determination is needed but has not been conducted The number of IDP/returnee children or other dependent persons who have not yet been reunited with their families relative to total displaced population size Accessible and efficient mechanisms have been put in place to reunite IDP/returnee separated family members The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) operationalized the IASC Framework for Durable Solutions for IDPs to develop the ReDSS Solutions framework for displacement affected communities. It comprises the 8 IASC criteria using 31 IASC indicators organized around physical, material and legal safety to measure durable solutions achievements in a particular context. The framework analysis serves as an evidence base to enable relevant stakeholders to work more effectively and consistently in the search and realization of durable solutions. This info graphic offers a snapshot in time to assess to what extent local integration for returnees and IDPs in Somalia have been achieved.

  24. UN Somalia Recommendations to: • prioritize ‘immediate’ (re)integration needs for displacement affected communities • inform medium/long term sectorial priorities of development programing complementing humanitarian interventions • Core elements • Adopting a durable solutions focus • Sectors and areas of interventions that need to be prioritized for immediate (re)integration needs • Processes and approaches to operationalize medium/long term sectorial priorities of development programing

  25. A. Core elements to inform Solutions planning and programing Creating durable solutions requires a multi- stakeholder and sectoral, rights and needs based programming approach – build on existing The process must be viewed as a collective action rather than mandate driven based on an inclusive, participatory and consensus building approach The FGS, regional administrations and local authorities have the primary responsibility and they need to be supported to be able to play a leadership and coordinating role Developing area based Solutions analysis (localization of aid) is paramount due to limited absorption capacity, prevailing protection concerns, and persistent security and access issues. Community engagement is critical to inform reintegration analysis and programing to make solutions lasting, locally relevant and supportive of social cohesion and to adopt a ‘displacement affected communities’ approach- inclusive of returnees, IDPs and host communities Involve development actors from the start to inform medium to long term sectorial priorities complementing humanitarian interventions

  26. UN Somalia B. Recommendations on adopting a durable solutions focus • Adopt a displacement framework to support joint accountability and analysis to monitor progress and challenges • Data collected should be standardized and disaggregated by demographic groups, namely host population, IDPs and returnees in order to better understand the profile/ vulnerabilities of returnees and IDPs and be conflict sensitive • Data on post-return monitoring should be standardized (in line with national household surveys) and made available to resilience consortiums and development organizations. Surveys should be longitudinal and include representative samples of IPDs and returnees, as well as urban and rural populations • Current and future programmes addressing the vulnerable segments of the general population should target IDPs and returnees – build on the existing • Invest in strengthening national and local capacity to understand displacement and sustain solutions (specifically in urban contexts)/ comprehensive and different

  27. UN Somalia C. Recommendations on sectors and areas of interventions that need to be prioritizedfor immediate (re)integration needs • Invest more on access to basic social services and boost the demand side for services by providing conditional cash/vouchers to targeted families. Government and implementing partner should keep a balance between supply-side of services and demand-side for services • Invest more on job creation programmes. This should be done in partnership with the private sector • Explore innovative ways to create convergence of objectives with recovery/development interventions, for example by setting conditional cash transfer for “collective action” • Work jointly with government and use government mechanisms when possible (and donors should accept the inherent risks)

  28. UN Somalia D. Recommendations on processes and approaches to operationalize medium/long term sectorial priorities of development programing (1/2) • Scale-up community-driven reconstruction/development (CDR/CDD) programmes that have a clear focus on displacement-affected populations • Local governance-oriented CDD: to link with government plans and to use government systems to transfer funds (commonly agreed criteria with other governance programmes) • CDR as transition between emergency and recovery: to be used in post-emergency situations as a way to increase ownership and sustainability

  29. UN Somalia D. Recommendations on processes and approaches to operationalize medium/long term sectorial priorities of development programing 2/2 • Scale up governance, service delivery & infrastructures, and security & justice programmes in areas that are affected by displacement • Set up “universal” long-term safety net programmes that are co-funded by private donors and diaspora • Put more emphasis on evidence-based programming and prioritize those interventions that have proved to be successful, following a rigorous testing process (use of counterfactual)

  30. UN Somalia Next Steps and Way Forward • Area based Solutions analysis for Baidoa and Mogadishu (ReDSS) • Coordination, Joint strategy and programing (DSRSG) • Durable Solution Framework and coordination • Areas based action plans: common outcomes and indicators/ timeframe and targets • 4 key cross cutting issues: Information and knowledge management/ Community driven programing/ Capacity development of local and national authorities/ Government engagement

More Related