CAR_Factsheet_RRM Annual Dashboard ... - REACH Resource Centre

Rapid Response Mechanism : Central African Republic Annual factsheet 01 January - 31 December 2016

The Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) is a tool to monitor humanitarian action, conduct multisector assessments and intervene in NFI and WASH when there is no capacity on site. The RRM is made possible through the generous support of the CERF, Denmark, European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO), Global Thematic, CHF, IFRC, OFDA, Japan, Portugal, SDC et SIDA. ll RRM products are available on the Humanitarian Response Portal. The Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) program in CAR, managed by UNICEF and its partners, aims at providing emergency assistance to vulnerable population affected by shocks, in coordination with Cluster partners and others actors on the ground. The RRM aims to respond to the urgent needs of people affected by a humanitarian shock related to an armed conflict, a natural disaster or an epidemia.

Three RRM pillars are: Ensure humanitarian watch through rapid sectoral and multi-sectoral assessments, in areas of displacement and return, as well as their dissemination at coordination and humanitarian community levels. Contribute to the improvement of the capacity of the affected population to carry out essential daily activities for their survival and dignity. Ensuring access to drinking water and a healthy environment for vulnerable populations affected by shocks through water emergency, hygiene and sanitation.

RRM methodology:

The RRM intervenes to support: • • • • • • •

Populations displaced or accessible since less than 3 months. Host families living in areas assisted by RRM program, which face a significantly increased degree of vulnerability. People returned or accessible since less than 3 months. Spontaneous returnees accessible since less than 3 months. People affected by an epidemic. Particularly vulnerable groups, especially those individuals who never moved because of their vulnerability. People affected by medium and large scale natural disasters.

NB. NFI: Non Food Items - WASH: Water Sanitation and Hygiene * The term ‘Returnees’ refers to people who have come back to their pre-crisis location following a period of internal displacement.** The term ‘repatriated’ refers to former refugees who have returned from neighbouring countries.

1

For more information, please contact: RRM Coordinator, Maurice Vanfoy: [email protected] RRM Specialist, Eric Mpolesha: [email protected]


RRM coverage areas by partner As reported below, the vast majority of alerts are from areas bordering Cameroon, Chad and along the conflict line crossing Nana Gribizi, Kemo and Ouaka. ACF

RRM partners January-December 2016

In 2016, the RRM had 4 operational partners covering most of the prefectures, excepting Vakaga and a large part of Haute Kotto The prefectures of Ombella Mpoko, BaminguiBangoran, Haut-Mbomou and the “zone of Bria” have been put under humanitarian watch, due to a lack of funding. This geographical cover enabled the setting up of an early warning system, which has received or sent more than 170 alerts related to humanitarian shocks.

ACF veille humanitaire ACTED ACTED veille humanitaire Vakaga

PU-AMI

ACF ACF PU-AMI veille humanitaire ACF veille humanitaire ACF-humanitarian watch SI ACTED ACTED Zone non couverte par les ACTED veille humanitaire partenaires RRM ACTED humanitarian watch PU-AMI PU-AMI PU-AMI veille humanitaire PU-AMI humanitarian watch SI SI Zone non couverte par les BaminguiOuham SI humanitarian watch partenaires RRM Bangoran Pendé

BaminguiBangoran Vakaga

Haute-Kotto Ouham

Nana-Gribizi

Ouaka

Haut-Mbomou

Haute-Kotto

Nana-Mambéré Ouham

Ouham Pendé

Nana-Gribizi

Mambéré-Kadéï

Ouaka

Kémo

Nana-Mambéré Ombella M'Poko

Ombella M'Poko Bangui

Lobaye

BasseKottoHaut-Mbomou

Mbomou

Sangha-Mbaéré BasseKotto

Bangui

Mambéré-Kadéï

Mbomou

Kémo

Lobaye Sangha-Mbaéré

Alerts received or sent by the RRM in 2016

Total number of alerts per prefecture: Vakaga

January - December 2016: 178

No Pasalert d'alertes 1 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 37

Bamingui-Bangoran

Alerts density: 0

Ouham

Ouham Pendé

Ouaka

Vakaga

Alert E Alerte " )

Haute-Kotto

NanaGribizi

15

Base du RRM partner RRM Base partenaire E EE

E E E E EE E E E EE E E E E EEOuham Pendé EE EEE Bouar " )

E

Nana-Mambéré E

EE E E E E Mambéré-Kadéï E E E E E

E E E

E E E E

Kabo

E E BaminguiEE Bangoran E E E E E E E

Haut-Mbomou

Nana-Mambéré

Kémo

Ombella M'Poko Mambéré-Kadéï

Haute-Kotto

" ) NanaEE E E Gribizi E EE E E E EE Kaga Bandoro E E E " ) E E E EE E E E E E EBossangoa E " E E ) E Ouaka E E E E EE E EE E Haut-Mbomou E E E Ouham E E Mbomou E Bambari E Sibut E E " ) E " ) E E E E E E E E Kémo E BasseEE E E E E E E Ombella E E E E E E Kotto EE EEEE M'Poko E Bangassou EE E E E " ) E E E E E E Lobaye E

Mbomou

BasseKotto

Lobaye SanghaMbaéré

Alerts received or sent monthly in 2016

SanghaMbaéré

January

Overview of RRM activities in 2016 Total reached in 2016: 215

Multi-sectoral assessments (MSA) NFI Distributions WASH Interventions

2

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November December

Distribution of RRM activities in 2016 # * " ) ! (

Exploratory misions Mission exploraoire MEX(MEX) Multi-sectoral assessments Evaluation multisectorielle MSA (MSA) WASH andNFI/WASH NFI interventions Intervention Sous-préfecture Sub-prefecture

Vakaga

Nombre d'activités par sous-préfecture

95 93 4832

Exploratory missions (MEX)

Februarry

76

74 37 28


# * " )

Pas activity d'activités No 11-- 55 10 66-- 10 11 - -1414 11

* # * " ) #

# * " ! ) (

# *) # * " ! )" ( # *

# " ! ) * ( # * * # ) ! " ) ( # *"

( " ) " " )! ! ( )! ( Ouham Pendé " * ! ) ( ) " " ! ) #" ( ) # * " ) # * " ) # * " " )) # * # * # *

Ombella M'Poko

" ) # *

Mambéré-Kadéï

Lobaye

SanghaMbaéré

" # * ( ) ! " (! ) # # * * " ) " )! ) " ( ) " " ! ) ( " )

Ouaka

# *

# * " )

! (

# * " ! ) ( Kémo

! (

# *

" ) ! ( " ! ) (

" ! ) ( # * " ) " ) # *

" ( ) " )! # * " ! ) (

# * " )" )

Haute-Kotto

# *

# * # *

# * # * # *

# *! " ) (

Haut-Mbomou

Mbomou

# *

# * BasseKotto

# *

# * # *

# *

BaminguiBangoran

NanaGribizi

" )

# *

! " ( ) # *

) # * " )" * " # * "# ) # " * )) ! " ( )

Ouham

Nana-Mambéré

" ( ) ! " ( )! # *# * " ! ) ( # *

" ) # *" # * ) # * # *

# * " ) ! " ( )

" ! ) (

# * " ! ) (

# * ! " ( )

" ) ( #! "# ! ) ( * *

* ! ( *# " )" ! ( )# *#

# *

! (# *


Individuals affected by shocks and beneficiaries reached in 2016 % total of individuals affected by shocks by status

Number of individuals affected by shocks by status

s Nombre d'individus affectés Number of indiviuals affected

Statu t d'individus affectés Status d'individus affectés Status of individual affected Déplacés Displaced Déplacés Returnees Retournés Retournés Host families Familles d'accueil Familles d'accueil Residents Communauté Communautéhôte hôte

< 10000 10001 -

30000

30001 - 100000 100001 - 235000

Vakaga

Displaced 21%

10291

62794

55663

MSA_idp MSA_retournés

234719

23940

Residents 44%

Haute-Kotto

BaminguiBangoran

Nana-Gribizi Ouham

1835

Haut-Mbomou

19354

Ouaka Kémo

BasseKotto

Ombella M'Poko

10071

Returnees 21%

49140

Ouham Pendé

Nana-Mambéré

MSA_accueil

23883

29829

Mbomou

Host families 14%

0

Mambéré-Kadéï

MSA_communauté hôte


During the NFI assistance, the vulnerable people from the host community were systematically targeted along with displaced people and returnees, which explains the significant proportion of RRM beneficiaries as part of the host community. However, the low percentage of assisted host families shows that most of the beneficiaries lived in their own shelters. The RRM intervened also in areas without humanitarian actors neither infrastructures or community based services.

Trend of population movement per month and status of areas covered by the RRM Individuals affected by shocks per status per month 30000

28316

19500

20000

18900

17284

16799

15357

Returnees 50 %

Displaced 50 %

Returnees 43 %

Displaced 57 %

9380

10000

7523

7500

6612

5649 2847

1876

3

0 January janvier

Februarry février

4950

3293

2780

March mars

0

April avril

May mai

0

1887 0

June june

July juillet

0

August août

1110

0

September septembre

October octobre

November novembre

December décembre

Beneficiaries per status per month 50000 42201

40000 30000

24144 18049

20000

17196 12930

11608

10000

7170 2026

559

0 January janvier

6695

4643

Februarry février

March mars

4234

4471 3627

0 April avril

May mai

June june

July juillet

7437 6990

5567 615 August août

16918

15895

1655 September septembre

3129 0 October octobre

November novembre

December décembre

Major returns were observed during the first trimester of 2016 due to the optimism raised by the presidential and legislative elections of the previous year. By contrast, the trend has reversed during the second semester as the proportion of displaced beneficiaries increased because of the renewed outbreak of armed conflict. Prefectures most affected by displacement were Basse-Kotto, OUaka, OUham Pende, Nana Gribizi and Mbomou ** The term ‘residents’ refers to individuals that have not been displaced as the result of a humanitarian-related event and are not hosting anyone in their home. * The term ‘host family’ refers to families who are hosting displaced, returnee or refugee persons in their home.

3



Multi-sectoral assessment results for 2016 During the course of 2015, the RRM conducted baseline MSAs in areas where no humanitarian shocks were reported; the purpose of this exercise was to review the alert score levels. The results of these baseline MSAs were positive as the vulnerability scores were below the alert level. However, MSAs that were undertaken following a humanitarian shock and in areas with no partners present showed high scores in the different sectors. Therefore, scores have not been changed. During 2016 RRM worked with different clusters on improving the MSA tool. NB. The alert scores, which are the values from which an intervention would take place, were defined with the different Clusters

Non Food Items

Water and Sanitation

Proportion des MSA avec accès a un source d'eau amélioré > 30 %

Proportion des MSA avec un score NFI < 3,8

Proportion des MSA avec accès a un source d'eau amélioré < 30 %

Proportion des MSA avec un score NFI > 3,8

Proportion des MSA avec un score NFI 3,8 Part 1 - 6 of the MSA with a NFI score

Proportion des MSA avec accèsaccess a un source amélioré > 30water % Part of the MSA with to d'eau an improved source 38,5 préfectureProportion des MSA avecde un consumation score de consumation > 38,5 préfectureProportion desMSA MSA avec un alimentaire > 38,5 Part of the with a score consumption food score alimentaire 38,5

4

4 Kémo

14

1

4 Mambéré-Kadéï SanghaMbaéré

Food security

11

4

Mambéré-Kadéï

SanghaMbaéré

11

Ombella M'Poko

4

9

Nana-Gribizi

OuhamOmbella M'Poko

Nana-Mambéré Ouham Pendé

Nana-Gribizi

6

Ouham

Ouham Pendé

Nana-Mambéré

1

0

Mambéré-Kadéï SanghaMbaéré

11 6

Haut-Mbomou

Mbomou

17

Haute-Kotto

Bamingui6 Bangoran

17

11

Nana-Gribizi

Ouham 17

11 Pendé Ouham

6

6

17

Haute-Kotto

BaminguiBangoran

6

6

11

Vakaga

7 - prefecture 11pas préfecture Number of MSA faites per Nombre de

88 % 57 %

91 % 42 %

90 % of households do not have access to hygienic latrine

30 % of households lived in a shelter below standard ***

21 % of MSA reported more than 45% of diarrhea among children under 5 years

Health and nutrition

69 %

Protection

68%

Food security

81 %

28 569 NFI kits distributed

Education

74%

56 improved water sources

Logistics

9%

30% of MSA reported that less than 10% of households had an improved drinking water source

Activités mises en place par le RRM: 148 hygiene promotion sessions 92 emergency latrines installed

17 water management committees revitalized

*% of MSA recommending an intervention for the sector concerned. **% of interventions conducted by the RRM on the number of MSA recommending an intervention for the sector concerned. ***3.5m2/person

4



Beneficiaries reached during interventions in 2016 The RRM reached 148,384 personnes though NFI distributions and 70,818 through WASH interventions. The level of each RRM partner’s intervention was determined based on the context.

Number of beneficiaries reached by WASH

Total interventions: 37 Total beneficiaries: 148,384 14 ACF 68,902

Total interventions: 28 Total beneficiaries: 70,818 25,347 7 ACF

22+16519 32+26514

Number of beneficiaries reached by NFI

15 ACTED

48,364

2 PU-AMI

5,107

6 Solidarités

18,249

13 ACTED

5,206

4 PU-AMI

4 Solidarités

26,011

22,016

30 711 21 090

23 870 22 823

20 201

19 868 14 129

12 204 8 207

6 812

4 558

646

janvier février

mars

avril

6 288 7 342

3 970

mai

juin

juillet

ACF

ACTED

août sept janvier février PU-AMI SI

5 229 1 776

586

oct mars

nov avril

déc mai

juin

ACF

ACTED

janvier février janvier juillet février août PU-AMI

mars mars sept

SI

avril avril oct

2 670

1 546

2 681

mai mai nov

juin juin déc

juillet juillet

ACF ACF

ACTED ACTED

1 195 août août

PU-AMI PU-AMI

sept sept

800 oct oct

nov nov

déc déc

SI SI

The number of beneficiaries has been higher than expected in the prefectures of Ouaka and Mbomou. The volume reached by NFI distributions in September and October was really low due to a difficult secure access. While the RRM planned NFI fairs for 2016, this was not made possible mainly for two reasons: lack of local markets in the areas of RRM intervention and security constraints.

Beneficiaries reached by NFI by sub-prefecture

Beneficiaries reached by WASH by sub-prefecture

Number of beneficiaries in 2016 Nombre d'individus atteints en 2016 Pas d'intervention NFI No intervention

Number of beneficiaries in 2016 Nombre d'individus atteints en 2016 Pasintervention d'intervention WASH No

Vakaga

< 10'000

Vakaga

< 3'000 3'000 - 10'000

10'001 - 25'000 25'001 - 51'360

10'001 - 19'520

BaminguiBangoran

BaminguiBangoran Haute-Kotto

Haute-Kotto

Nana-Gribizi

Nana-Gribizi Ouham Pendé

Nana-Mambéré

Ombella M'Poko

Ouham Pendé

Ouaka

Ouham

Haut-Mbomou

Haut-Mbomou

Kémo

BasseKotto

Mbomou

Nana-Mambéré

Ombella M'Poko

Kémo

BasseKotto

Mbomou

Mambéré-Kadéï

Mambéré-Kadéï

Lobaye


In order to respect the humanitarian principle of “do no harm”, but also in view of the vulnerability due to the presence of new people in a household (host families), in specific circumstances partners distributed NFIs to host communities.

5

Ouaka

Ouham


SanghaMbaéré

WASH activities consisted mainly of borehole rehabilitations, improved water sources and hygiene awareness campaigns.


Beneficiaries reached during interventions in 2016

Intervention areas mostly corresponded to areas of alerts and MSA, with significant caseload in the prefectures of Mambéré-Kadéï, Ouham Pende, Ouham, Nana-Grébizi, Ouaka and Mbomou.

Number of NFI beneficiaries reached by status Number of beneficiaries

s

No activity 1 - 6 000 6 001 - 15 000 15 001 - 30 000 30 001 - 54 850

Number of NFI beneficiaries reached by status

Status of Statut d'individus affectés beneficiaries Déplacés Displaced Retournés Returnees Familles d'accueil Host families Communauté hôte Residents

Residents 4%

Displaced 42 %

Returnees 53 %

Host families 1%

Number of WASH beneficiaries reached by status Number of beneficiaries

s

No activity 1 - 5 000 5 001 - 10 000 10 001 - 19 520

% total of WASH beneficiaries reached by status

Status of Statut d'individus affectés beneficiaries Displaced Déplacés Returnees Retournés Host families Familles d'accueil Residents Communauté hôte

Residents 34%

Displaced 41 %

Returnees 25 %

Photo credit: ACTED / RRM

6


Photo credit: SI / RRM


Post-distribution monitoring

During the RRM strategic workshop (June) and strategic committees (April and October), recommendations were formulated to improve response times, and undertake more Post Monitoring missions in order to analyse the quality of the response. 29 PDM exercises showed that overall the situation was deemed satisfactory.

Overall satisfaction level with 2016 interventions The 29 PDMs conducted between January and December 2016 showed the following satisfaction levels:

Completely satisfied 84 % Complètement satisfait

Moderately satisfied Moyennement satisfait 13% Peu satisfait Pas du tout satisfait

Somewhat satisfied 2% Not satisfied at all 1%

Photo credit: PU AMI / RRM

Average distribution delay

% of satisfaction with the QUALITY of: Satisfait de la QUALITE 100 95

Too early 3% On time 78%

90 85

A Temps

80

Trop tot

75

Too lateTrop 18% tard

70

Ne sait pas

Don’t know 1%

Baches Tarpaulins

Blankets

Couvertures

Kits de cuisine Cooking kits

Nattes Mats

Seaux Buckets

% of satisfaction with the QUANTITY of: Satisfait de la QUANTITE 80 75 70

Average use of Non Food Items

65 60 55 50

Used 93%

Given to someone else 3% Used for other things 2% Sold 2%

NB. PDM: Post Distribution Monitoring

7


Tarpaulins Baches

Blankets Couvertures

Cooking kits Kits de cuisine

Mats Nattes

Buckets Seaux

% of positive perception of the USEFULNESS of an item:

Cooking kits 52%

Buckets 29%

Tarpaulins 36%

Blankets 13%

NB: These percentages are calculated on the total of the population surveyed in the 29 PDM conducted in 2016.


Delay Major security issues related to the presence of armed groups delayed the RRM response. Despite improvements in the humanitarian access, the situation in several roads remained unstable, which caused longer delays of intervention than expected by the RRM coordination.

Delay alert - MSA* Average Median

frequency

With all MSA

19

1

63

26

Median

182

Number of days

Average

Frequency

Without MSA over 60 days due to securityconstraints

1

15

Median

Number of days

21

Average

63

Delay Alert - Intervention**

Frequency

With all interventions

6

56 60

78

Number of days Median

Average

Frequency

Without interventions over 60 days due to security constraints

212

6

Number of days

* Number of days between the validation of the intervention par the RRM comittee and the start date of a MSA ** Number of days between the validation of the intervention par the RRM comittee and the start date of an intervention realized by the RRM

8


45 46

78