In the earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on 11 March 2011, more than 20,000 people lost their lives or went missing. Over 250,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed; some 4.4 million households were left without electricity and 2.3 million…
These challenges, as well as potential opportunities, were highlighted in a set of case studies prepared for the IASC as background to its Strategy for urban areas [see box]. The case studies focused on Nairobi and Eldoret in Kenya (post-election violence), Manila (typhoons) and Port-au-Prince (earthquake). Drawing on this experience and lessons which emerged from it, this article considers four of the most pressing challenges and some of the potential opportunities.
Although some research suggests that domestic or intimate partner violence (IPV) is no more or less prevalent among minority groups in the United States than in the general population, refugees and immigrants face special barriers to receiving appropriate services. The causes of violence are multiple and complex but the intense stress associated with adjustment to a new life can create tension and conflict that may make IPV more likely.
After Kenya’s 2007 national presidential elections were marked by violence resulting in loss of lives and widespread displacement, a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) was established. Some of the reported 12,000 Kenyans who fled to Uganda had returned spontaneously shortly after arrival. Others, however, found themselves unable to return so long as the issues which contributed to their flight remained unresolved.
Around two-thirds of the world’s 27 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) live in situations of protracted displacement.1 The IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs identifies three settlement options for durable solutions for IDPs: return to their community of origin,…
A major challenge for agencies operating in many conflict and post-conflict environments is the lack of regular access to displaced communities and project sites due to insecurity. In environments where the level of risk limits the ability to monitor, the options for humanitarian actors are normally either to reduce operations or accept the consequences of minimal oversight.