ReliefWeb Latest Reports for Country Office

Nepal: Cash in hand, Nepal quake-hit villagers look to rebuild lives

Nepal - ReliefWeb News - 4 hours 43 min ago
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Country: Nepal

She pauses for a moment when asked about the damages caused to her family by the devastating Nepal earthquake of 25 April 2015. Seconds later, 70-year-old Purna Maya Magar, from Ghorthali village in Sindhupalchowk, the worst-hit district, mumbles at a loss for words to describe it.

Last week, Purna was one of about 200 women and men, who trekked for about four hours to the nearest town, Barhabise, to collect US $75 in cash (Nepali rupees 7,500) from Mercy Corps, one of the NGOs providing humanitarian support to the affected.

Read the full article on OCHA

Mali: Bulletin de suivi de la campagne agropastorale en Afrique de l’Ouest : Bulletin spécial No. 03 - juin 2015

Niger - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 1 min ago
Source: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel Country: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo

Mise à jour des prévisions agro-hydro-climatique de la saison des pluies au mois de juin 2015

La présente mise à jour porte sur les prévisions des caractéristiques agro-hydroclimatiques pour la saison des pluies 2015 au Sahel et en Afrique de l’Ouest. Elle est basée sur la situation actuelle des températures des surfaces des océans et prend en compte les prévisions des modèles climatiques des grands centres mondiaux de prévision.

Globalement, des dates de début de saison des pluies tardives, des dates de fin de saison précoces à normales, des durées de séquences sèches en début de saison moyennes à plus longues et des durées de séquences sèches de fin de saison plus longues à moyennes sont prévues dans le Sahel et en Afrique de l'Ouest.

Des écoulements globalement moyens à tendance légèrement excédentaires pour certains bassins sahéliens et déficitaires pour les bassins soudaniens sont attendus.

La configuration de la saison des pluies est relativement plus optimiste sur le plan hydrologique que sur le plan pluviométrique.

Mali: Bulletin de suivi de la campagne agropastorale en Afrique de l’Ouest : Bulletin spécial No. 03 - juin 2015

Guinea - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 1 min ago
Source: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel Country: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo

Mise à jour des prévisions agro-hydro-climatique de la saison des pluies au mois de juin 2015

La présente mise à jour porte sur les prévisions des caractéristiques agro-hydroclimatiques pour la saison des pluies 2015 au Sahel et en Afrique de l’Ouest. Elle est basée sur la situation actuelle des températures des surfaces des océans et prend en compte les prévisions des modèles climatiques des grands centres mondiaux de prévision.

Globalement, des dates de début de saison des pluies tardives, des dates de fin de saison précoces à normales, des durées de séquences sèches en début de saison moyennes à plus longues et des durées de séquences sèches de fin de saison plus longues à moyennes sont prévues dans le Sahel et en Afrique de l'Ouest.

Des écoulements globalement moyens à tendance légèrement excédentaires pour certains bassins sahéliens et déficitaires pour les bassins soudaniens sont attendus.

La configuration de la saison des pluies est relativement plus optimiste sur le plan hydrologique que sur le plan pluviométrique.

Mali: Bulletin de suivi de la campagne agropastorale en Afrique de l’Ouest : Bulletin spécial No. 03 - juin 2015

Côte d’Ivoire - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 1 min ago
Source: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel Country: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo

Mise à jour des prévisions agro-hydro-climatique de la saison des pluies au mois de juin 2015

La présente mise à jour porte sur les prévisions des caractéristiques agro-hydroclimatiques pour la saison des pluies 2015 au Sahel et en Afrique de l’Ouest. Elle est basée sur la situation actuelle des températures des surfaces des océans et prend en compte les prévisions des modèles climatiques des grands centres mondiaux de prévision.

Globalement, des dates de début de saison des pluies tardives, des dates de fin de saison précoces à normales, des durées de séquences sèches en début de saison moyennes à plus longues et des durées de séquences sèches de fin de saison plus longues à moyennes sont prévues dans le Sahel et en Afrique de l'Ouest.

Des écoulements globalement moyens à tendance légèrement excédentaires pour certains bassins sahéliens et déficitaires pour les bassins soudaniens sont attendus.

La configuration de la saison des pluies est relativement plus optimiste sur le plan hydrologique que sur le plan pluviométrique.

Mali: Bulletin de suivi de la campagne agropastorale en Afrique de l’Ouest : Bulletin spécial No. 03 - juin 2015

Chad - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 1 min ago
Source: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel Country: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo

Mise à jour des prévisions agro-hydro-climatique de la saison des pluies au mois de juin 2015

La présente mise à jour porte sur les prévisions des caractéristiques agro-hydroclimatiques pour la saison des pluies 2015 au Sahel et en Afrique de l’Ouest. Elle est basée sur la situation actuelle des températures des surfaces des océans et prend en compte les prévisions des modèles climatiques des grands centres mondiaux de prévision.

Globalement, des dates de début de saison des pluies tardives, des dates de fin de saison précoces à normales, des durées de séquences sèches en début de saison moyennes à plus longues et des durées de séquences sèches de fin de saison plus longues à moyennes sont prévues dans le Sahel et en Afrique de l'Ouest.

Des écoulements globalement moyens à tendance légèrement excédentaires pour certains bassins sahéliens et déficitaires pour les bassins soudaniens sont attendus.

La configuration de la saison des pluies est relativement plus optimiste sur le plan hydrologique que sur le plan pluviométrique.

Kenya: Mandera attack sitrep update no. 1, on 7th July 2015

Kenya - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 15 min ago
Source: Kenya Red Cross Country: Kenya

Situation Overview

Heavy explosion and gunfire was reported in Mandera on the morning of 7th July 2015 at around 0215hrs near Soko la Mbuzi (Goats Market) in Mandera County, North East Kenya.

It is reported that a group of armed men attacked a residential premise occupied mainly by quarry workers and local construction workers killing 11 people at the scene of the attack using hand grenades and firearms. Three (3) more people are reported to have died while undergoing treatment at the Mandera level 4 hospital where they had been transferred. Likewise 11 survivors with varying degrees of injuries five of them critically injured, received treatment in Mandera level 4 hospital by daybreak.

KRCS Response

The Kenya Red Cross society (KRCS) in response towards the situation supported in evacuating the injured and the deceased bodies to Mandera Hospital. Initial identification of the bodies was carried out, by today morning at 10 o’clock, 10 bodies had been identified. Tracing team contacted the families of the survivors who were still admitted in hospital.

In addition one plane with a team of 6 personnel (4 paramedic, 1 doctors and 1 Emergency operation centre officer) was deployed to Mandera on early hours of today 7th July 2015, to evacuate the critically injured victims from Mandera Hospital to Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi. Two planes have been dispatched by the National Disaster Operations Centre (NDOC) (Under the Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government) to transport the injured and the other one to ferry the deceased bodies from Mandera to Nairobi.

Currently KRCS has notified the Kenyatta National Hospital to admit the affected victims on arrival. Equally, a team of paramedics with 8 ambulances has been organized to transfer the injured on arrival from Wilson airport to Kenyatta National Hospital. Moreover a team of counsellors has also been mobilized to provide psychological first aid, emotional support and tracing services to family members, friends and relatives of the deceased, and survivors both in Nairobi and Nairobi.

Conclusion

KRCS continues to monitor the situation progress closely, in coordination with the respective arms of government, primarily NDOC and National Disaster Management Unit response (NDMU).

World: Country-Based Pooled Funding Mechanisms: Mapping and Comparative Analysis

Yemen - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 16 min ago
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, World, Yemen

Executive Summary

This study contributes to a broader effort to achieve clarity of purpose for Country Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). These Funds, at the disposal of UN Humanitarian Coordinators (HC)s, tend to operate in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), settings that absorb a high proportion of global humanitarian assistance. In FCAS, the humanitarian system plays a wide variety of roles, ranging from strictly life-saving response to disaster preparedness and resilience building. Whether or not the system as a whole should play a broad or narrow role remains a constant source of debate. Critical to analysis in the context of FCAS is the relationship between humanitarian and other forms of assistance: development (in the broad sense); recovery; disaster preparedness; stabilization; and the delivery of basic services in the absence of state systems. To better define the purpose of CBPFs, the report explores the interrelated issues of alignment and breadth of response: should these funds, in support of the humanitarian system, be focused on life-saving assistance, or should they should take a broader approach to humanitarian response, across the breadth of OCHA’s mandate and including components like early recovery, disaster preparedness and resilience building?

Looking at both Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) and Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs), this report examines the ambiguity of focus within each mechanism. It addresses how CBPFs can be better aligned, both with one another and with other aspects of humanitarian response (including development and preparedness funding). Additionally, the report takes a forward looking approach to identifying what the breadth and scope of response should be within CBPFs, as well as their balance of strategy versus responsiveness and their capacity for incorporating resilience. Using an analysis of key financial data, global and country-level guidelines and evaluations, and annual and financial reports, this study situates CBPFs and their broader purpose as a humanitarian response mechanism in the context of current global policy debates. It undertakes a comparative analysis of ERFs and CHFs using global guidance and evaluations, and country case studies to situate the global analysis. The case studies examine the CBPFs present in the DRC, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Pakistan and Haiti. Each one considers questions of size and scale, and especially how the CBPFs support Consolidated Appeals Processes or alternative response plans. They also provide examples of complementary action between CBPFs, the CERF and other funding streams.

The study concludes that ERFs and CHFs, while nominally different for historical reasons, are more similar than stated in the long-standing guidance. Global guidance in place at the start of the research period was separate for ERFs and CHFs and tended, in places, to conflate the scale and the purpose of the Funds, and to cement unhelpful delineation between the two such as the explicit reference to NGO funding in the ERF guidance. The country studies confirm that while ERFs do tend to be smaller overall than CHFs, some (notably Pakistan and Haiti) have been very substantial and Ethiopia continues to be so. Other large ERFs have adopted strategic allocations, ultimately suggesting that the scale of any given Fund is as important a factor in its potential use as is its designation as a CHF or ERF. An overarching conclusion of the study, therefore, is that CHFs and ERFs should be viewed as variations on a single type of funding mechanism, albeit with a range of scales and a variety of funding modalities. The characteristics of CBPFs should be driven primarily by the context in which they operate. Funds should be aligned with strategic priorities when scale allows and also responsive. CBPFs should be needs-driven and provide funding to the actors best placed to respond the needs targeted. OCHA’s updated guidance note, along with new management arrangements in OCHA FCS, takes significant strides in this direction, recognising the similarities between ERFs and CHFs and the need to rationalise and harmonise policy support to them.

Humanitarian Outcomes

The country studies include ERFs which have suffered from rapidly diminishing support, notably those that were set up, or re-energised as primary conduits for funding in the aftermath of natural disasters. As such, the study identifies the need to ensure that careful consideration is given to the opening of CBPFs in the aftermath of rapid onset emergencies. While it is clearly useful to have a pooled funding instrument in the aftermath of a large scale response, as one part of a set of funding tools (including the CERF and the START Fund), the capacity for funding levels to diminish quickly has to be taken into consideration and a flexible approach to Fund management considered. As well as being adapted to the context, CBPFs must be fit for purpose in terms of adequate management capacity. If a more flexible approach to activation and de-activation of CBPFs is considered, the management of human resources in an equally flexible and responsive fashion is critically important.

The report draws additional conclusions on the question of whether CBPFs should take a narrow or broad view of humanitarian assistance and/or support recovery, preparedness and early action. The advice from numerous evaluations is consistent and predictable: in the majority of cases, and especially for small ERFs, they have been designed to provide responsive allocations to unforeseen shocks or critical gaps; and CHFs, by virtue of having an emergency reserve, have had the same responsive capacity. Over and above this capacity, the CHF model has supported the UN led annual planning and prioritisation cycle. Guidance in place at the start of the research period allowed for considerable flexibility. CHFs have offered a much greater scope to support preparedness, early action and recovery if these are identified as priorities by the collective humanitarian system.

In addition, the issue of size and scale presents an interesting challenge to the suggestion that CBPFs should play a central role in resilience. In cases where CBPFs face a reduction in size, there is a clear tendency for them to re-prioritise in such a way that narrows their purpose towards acute needs. As a result, identifying resilience as a key role and responsibility of CBPFs may be problematic. Successfully funding resilience and preparedness requires a more stable funding source than CBPFs can currently offer. The report concludes that a better model would see development, recovery or preparedness instruments complementing humanitarian pooled funds and making cross referrals. Coordination, or indeed any kind of interaction between humanitarian and recovery, preparedness or any other type of funding instrument in the case study countries, was strikingly absent.

World: Country-Based Pooled Funding Mechanisms: Mapping and Comparative Analysis

Sudan - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 16 min ago
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, World, Yemen

Executive Summary

This study contributes to a broader effort to achieve clarity of purpose for Country Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). These Funds, at the disposal of UN Humanitarian Coordinators (HC)s, tend to operate in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), settings that absorb a high proportion of global humanitarian assistance. In FCAS, the humanitarian system plays a wide variety of roles, ranging from strictly life-saving response to disaster preparedness and resilience building. Whether or not the system as a whole should play a broad or narrow role remains a constant source of debate. Critical to analysis in the context of FCAS is the relationship between humanitarian and other forms of assistance: development (in the broad sense); recovery; disaster preparedness; stabilization; and the delivery of basic services in the absence of state systems. To better define the purpose of CBPFs, the report explores the interrelated issues of alignment and breadth of response: should these funds, in support of the humanitarian system, be focused on life-saving assistance, or should they should take a broader approach to humanitarian response, across the breadth of OCHA’s mandate and including components like early recovery, disaster preparedness and resilience building?

Looking at both Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) and Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs), this report examines the ambiguity of focus within each mechanism. It addresses how CBPFs can be better aligned, both with one another and with other aspects of humanitarian response (including development and preparedness funding). Additionally, the report takes a forward looking approach to identifying what the breadth and scope of response should be within CBPFs, as well as their balance of strategy versus responsiveness and their capacity for incorporating resilience. Using an analysis of key financial data, global and country-level guidelines and evaluations, and annual and financial reports, this study situates CBPFs and their broader purpose as a humanitarian response mechanism in the context of current global policy debates. It undertakes a comparative analysis of ERFs and CHFs using global guidance and evaluations, and country case studies to situate the global analysis. The case studies examine the CBPFs present in the DRC, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Pakistan and Haiti. Each one considers questions of size and scale, and especially how the CBPFs support Consolidated Appeals Processes or alternative response plans. They also provide examples of complementary action between CBPFs, the CERF and other funding streams.

The study concludes that ERFs and CHFs, while nominally different for historical reasons, are more similar than stated in the long-standing guidance. Global guidance in place at the start of the research period was separate for ERFs and CHFs and tended, in places, to conflate the scale and the purpose of the Funds, and to cement unhelpful delineation between the two such as the explicit reference to NGO funding in the ERF guidance. The country studies confirm that while ERFs do tend to be smaller overall than CHFs, some (notably Pakistan and Haiti) have been very substantial and Ethiopia continues to be so. Other large ERFs have adopted strategic allocations, ultimately suggesting that the scale of any given Fund is as important a factor in its potential use as is its designation as a CHF or ERF. An overarching conclusion of the study, therefore, is that CHFs and ERFs should be viewed as variations on a single type of funding mechanism, albeit with a range of scales and a variety of funding modalities. The characteristics of CBPFs should be driven primarily by the context in which they operate. Funds should be aligned with strategic priorities when scale allows and also responsive. CBPFs should be needs-driven and provide funding to the actors best placed to respond the needs targeted. OCHA’s updated guidance note, along with new management arrangements in OCHA FCS, takes significant strides in this direction, recognising the similarities between ERFs and CHFs and the need to rationalise and harmonise policy support to them.

Humanitarian Outcomes

The country studies include ERFs which have suffered from rapidly diminishing support, notably those that were set up, or re-energised as primary conduits for funding in the aftermath of natural disasters. As such, the study identifies the need to ensure that careful consideration is given to the opening of CBPFs in the aftermath of rapid onset emergencies. While it is clearly useful to have a pooled funding instrument in the aftermath of a large scale response, as one part of a set of funding tools (including the CERF and the START Fund), the capacity for funding levels to diminish quickly has to be taken into consideration and a flexible approach to Fund management considered. As well as being adapted to the context, CBPFs must be fit for purpose in terms of adequate management capacity. If a more flexible approach to activation and de-activation of CBPFs is considered, the management of human resources in an equally flexible and responsive fashion is critically important.

The report draws additional conclusions on the question of whether CBPFs should take a narrow or broad view of humanitarian assistance and/or support recovery, preparedness and early action. The advice from numerous evaluations is consistent and predictable: in the majority of cases, and especially for small ERFs, they have been designed to provide responsive allocations to unforeseen shocks or critical gaps; and CHFs, by virtue of having an emergency reserve, have had the same responsive capacity. Over and above this capacity, the CHF model has supported the UN led annual planning and prioritisation cycle. Guidance in place at the start of the research period allowed for considerable flexibility. CHFs have offered a much greater scope to support preparedness, early action and recovery if these are identified as priorities by the collective humanitarian system.

In addition, the issue of size and scale presents an interesting challenge to the suggestion that CBPFs should play a central role in resilience. In cases where CBPFs face a reduction in size, there is a clear tendency for them to re-prioritise in such a way that narrows their purpose towards acute needs. As a result, identifying resilience as a key role and responsibility of CBPFs may be problematic. Successfully funding resilience and preparedness requires a more stable funding source than CBPFs can currently offer. The report concludes that a better model would see development, recovery or preparedness instruments complementing humanitarian pooled funds and making cross referrals. Coordination, or indeed any kind of interaction between humanitarian and recovery, preparedness or any other type of funding instrument in the case study countries, was strikingly absent.

World: Country-Based Pooled Funding Mechanisms: Mapping and Comparative Analysis

Somalia - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 16 min ago
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, World, Yemen

Executive Summary

This study contributes to a broader effort to achieve clarity of purpose for Country Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). These Funds, at the disposal of UN Humanitarian Coordinators (HC)s, tend to operate in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), settings that absorb a high proportion of global humanitarian assistance. In FCAS, the humanitarian system plays a wide variety of roles, ranging from strictly life-saving response to disaster preparedness and resilience building. Whether or not the system as a whole should play a broad or narrow role remains a constant source of debate. Critical to analysis in the context of FCAS is the relationship between humanitarian and other forms of assistance: development (in the broad sense); recovery; disaster preparedness; stabilization; and the delivery of basic services in the absence of state systems. To better define the purpose of CBPFs, the report explores the interrelated issues of alignment and breadth of response: should these funds, in support of the humanitarian system, be focused on life-saving assistance, or should they should take a broader approach to humanitarian response, across the breadth of OCHA’s mandate and including components like early recovery, disaster preparedness and resilience building?

Looking at both Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) and Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs), this report examines the ambiguity of focus within each mechanism. It addresses how CBPFs can be better aligned, both with one another and with other aspects of humanitarian response (including development and preparedness funding). Additionally, the report takes a forward looking approach to identifying what the breadth and scope of response should be within CBPFs, as well as their balance of strategy versus responsiveness and their capacity for incorporating resilience. Using an analysis of key financial data, global and country-level guidelines and evaluations, and annual and financial reports, this study situates CBPFs and their broader purpose as a humanitarian response mechanism in the context of current global policy debates. It undertakes a comparative analysis of ERFs and CHFs using global guidance and evaluations, and country case studies to situate the global analysis. The case studies examine the CBPFs present in the DRC, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Pakistan and Haiti. Each one considers questions of size and scale, and especially how the CBPFs support Consolidated Appeals Processes or alternative response plans. They also provide examples of complementary action between CBPFs, the CERF and other funding streams.

The study concludes that ERFs and CHFs, while nominally different for historical reasons, are more similar than stated in the long-standing guidance. Global guidance in place at the start of the research period was separate for ERFs and CHFs and tended, in places, to conflate the scale and the purpose of the Funds, and to cement unhelpful delineation between the two such as the explicit reference to NGO funding in the ERF guidance. The country studies confirm that while ERFs do tend to be smaller overall than CHFs, some (notably Pakistan and Haiti) have been very substantial and Ethiopia continues to be so. Other large ERFs have adopted strategic allocations, ultimately suggesting that the scale of any given Fund is as important a factor in its potential use as is its designation as a CHF or ERF. An overarching conclusion of the study, therefore, is that CHFs and ERFs should be viewed as variations on a single type of funding mechanism, albeit with a range of scales and a variety of funding modalities. The characteristics of CBPFs should be driven primarily by the context in which they operate. Funds should be aligned with strategic priorities when scale allows and also responsive. CBPFs should be needs-driven and provide funding to the actors best placed to respond the needs targeted. OCHA’s updated guidance note, along with new management arrangements in OCHA FCS, takes significant strides in this direction, recognising the similarities between ERFs and CHFs and the need to rationalise and harmonise policy support to them.

Humanitarian Outcomes

The country studies include ERFs which have suffered from rapidly diminishing support, notably those that were set up, or re-energised as primary conduits for funding in the aftermath of natural disasters. As such, the study identifies the need to ensure that careful consideration is given to the opening of CBPFs in the aftermath of rapid onset emergencies. While it is clearly useful to have a pooled funding instrument in the aftermath of a large scale response, as one part of a set of funding tools (including the CERF and the START Fund), the capacity for funding levels to diminish quickly has to be taken into consideration and a flexible approach to Fund management considered. As well as being adapted to the context, CBPFs must be fit for purpose in terms of adequate management capacity. If a more flexible approach to activation and de-activation of CBPFs is considered, the management of human resources in an equally flexible and responsive fashion is critically important.

The report draws additional conclusions on the question of whether CBPFs should take a narrow or broad view of humanitarian assistance and/or support recovery, preparedness and early action. The advice from numerous evaluations is consistent and predictable: in the majority of cases, and especially for small ERFs, they have been designed to provide responsive allocations to unforeseen shocks or critical gaps; and CHFs, by virtue of having an emergency reserve, have had the same responsive capacity. Over and above this capacity, the CHF model has supported the UN led annual planning and prioritisation cycle. Guidance in place at the start of the research period allowed for considerable flexibility. CHFs have offered a much greater scope to support preparedness, early action and recovery if these are identified as priorities by the collective humanitarian system.

In addition, the issue of size and scale presents an interesting challenge to the suggestion that CBPFs should play a central role in resilience. In cases where CBPFs face a reduction in size, there is a clear tendency for them to re-prioritise in such a way that narrows their purpose towards acute needs. As a result, identifying resilience as a key role and responsibility of CBPFs may be problematic. Successfully funding resilience and preparedness requires a more stable funding source than CBPFs can currently offer. The report concludes that a better model would see development, recovery or preparedness instruments complementing humanitarian pooled funds and making cross referrals. Coordination, or indeed any kind of interaction between humanitarian and recovery, preparedness or any other type of funding instrument in the case study countries, was strikingly absent.

World: Country-Based Pooled Funding Mechanisms: Mapping and Comparative Analysis

Pakistan - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 16 min ago
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, World, Yemen

Executive Summary

This study contributes to a broader effort to achieve clarity of purpose for Country Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). These Funds, at the disposal of UN Humanitarian Coordinators (HC)s, tend to operate in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), settings that absorb a high proportion of global humanitarian assistance. In FCAS, the humanitarian system plays a wide variety of roles, ranging from strictly life-saving response to disaster preparedness and resilience building. Whether or not the system as a whole should play a broad or narrow role remains a constant source of debate. Critical to analysis in the context of FCAS is the relationship between humanitarian and other forms of assistance: development (in the broad sense); recovery; disaster preparedness; stabilization; and the delivery of basic services in the absence of state systems. To better define the purpose of CBPFs, the report explores the interrelated issues of alignment and breadth of response: should these funds, in support of the humanitarian system, be focused on life-saving assistance, or should they should take a broader approach to humanitarian response, across the breadth of OCHA’s mandate and including components like early recovery, disaster preparedness and resilience building?

Looking at both Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) and Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs), this report examines the ambiguity of focus within each mechanism. It addresses how CBPFs can be better aligned, both with one another and with other aspects of humanitarian response (including development and preparedness funding). Additionally, the report takes a forward looking approach to identifying what the breadth and scope of response should be within CBPFs, as well as their balance of strategy versus responsiveness and their capacity for incorporating resilience. Using an analysis of key financial data, global and country-level guidelines and evaluations, and annual and financial reports, this study situates CBPFs and their broader purpose as a humanitarian response mechanism in the context of current global policy debates. It undertakes a comparative analysis of ERFs and CHFs using global guidance and evaluations, and country case studies to situate the global analysis. The case studies examine the CBPFs present in the DRC, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Pakistan and Haiti. Each one considers questions of size and scale, and especially how the CBPFs support Consolidated Appeals Processes or alternative response plans. They also provide examples of complementary action between CBPFs, the CERF and other funding streams.

The study concludes that ERFs and CHFs, while nominally different for historical reasons, are more similar than stated in the long-standing guidance. Global guidance in place at the start of the research period was separate for ERFs and CHFs and tended, in places, to conflate the scale and the purpose of the Funds, and to cement unhelpful delineation between the two such as the explicit reference to NGO funding in the ERF guidance. The country studies confirm that while ERFs do tend to be smaller overall than CHFs, some (notably Pakistan and Haiti) have been very substantial and Ethiopia continues to be so. Other large ERFs have adopted strategic allocations, ultimately suggesting that the scale of any given Fund is as important a factor in its potential use as is its designation as a CHF or ERF. An overarching conclusion of the study, therefore, is that CHFs and ERFs should be viewed as variations on a single type of funding mechanism, albeit with a range of scales and a variety of funding modalities. The characteristics of CBPFs should be driven primarily by the context in which they operate. Funds should be aligned with strategic priorities when scale allows and also responsive. CBPFs should be needs-driven and provide funding to the actors best placed to respond the needs targeted. OCHA’s updated guidance note, along with new management arrangements in OCHA FCS, takes significant strides in this direction, recognising the similarities between ERFs and CHFs and the need to rationalise and harmonise policy support to them.

Humanitarian Outcomes

The country studies include ERFs which have suffered from rapidly diminishing support, notably those that were set up, or re-energised as primary conduits for funding in the aftermath of natural disasters. As such, the study identifies the need to ensure that careful consideration is given to the opening of CBPFs in the aftermath of rapid onset emergencies. While it is clearly useful to have a pooled funding instrument in the aftermath of a large scale response, as one part of a set of funding tools (including the CERF and the START Fund), the capacity for funding levels to diminish quickly has to be taken into consideration and a flexible approach to Fund management considered. As well as being adapted to the context, CBPFs must be fit for purpose in terms of adequate management capacity. If a more flexible approach to activation and de-activation of CBPFs is considered, the management of human resources in an equally flexible and responsive fashion is critically important.

The report draws additional conclusions on the question of whether CBPFs should take a narrow or broad view of humanitarian assistance and/or support recovery, preparedness and early action. The advice from numerous evaluations is consistent and predictable: in the majority of cases, and especially for small ERFs, they have been designed to provide responsive allocations to unforeseen shocks or critical gaps; and CHFs, by virtue of having an emergency reserve, have had the same responsive capacity. Over and above this capacity, the CHF model has supported the UN led annual planning and prioritisation cycle. Guidance in place at the start of the research period allowed for considerable flexibility. CHFs have offered a much greater scope to support preparedness, early action and recovery if these are identified as priorities by the collective humanitarian system.

In addition, the issue of size and scale presents an interesting challenge to the suggestion that CBPFs should play a central role in resilience. In cases where CBPFs face a reduction in size, there is a clear tendency for them to re-prioritise in such a way that narrows their purpose towards acute needs. As a result, identifying resilience as a key role and responsibility of CBPFs may be problematic. Successfully funding resilience and preparedness requires a more stable funding source than CBPFs can currently offer. The report concludes that a better model would see development, recovery or preparedness instruments complementing humanitarian pooled funds and making cross referrals. Coordination, or indeed any kind of interaction between humanitarian and recovery, preparedness or any other type of funding instrument in the case study countries, was strikingly absent.

World: Country-Based Pooled Funding Mechanisms: Mapping and Comparative Analysis

Haiti - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 16 min ago
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, World, Yemen

Executive Summary

This study contributes to a broader effort to achieve clarity of purpose for Country Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). These Funds, at the disposal of UN Humanitarian Coordinators (HC)s, tend to operate in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), settings that absorb a high proportion of global humanitarian assistance. In FCAS, the humanitarian system plays a wide variety of roles, ranging from strictly life-saving response to disaster preparedness and resilience building. Whether or not the system as a whole should play a broad or narrow role remains a constant source of debate. Critical to analysis in the context of FCAS is the relationship between humanitarian and other forms of assistance: development (in the broad sense); recovery; disaster preparedness; stabilization; and the delivery of basic services in the absence of state systems. To better define the purpose of CBPFs, the report explores the interrelated issues of alignment and breadth of response: should these funds, in support of the humanitarian system, be focused on life-saving assistance, or should they should take a broader approach to humanitarian response, across the breadth of OCHA’s mandate and including components like early recovery, disaster preparedness and resilience building?

Looking at both Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) and Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs), this report examines the ambiguity of focus within each mechanism. It addresses how CBPFs can be better aligned, both with one another and with other aspects of humanitarian response (including development and preparedness funding). Additionally, the report takes a forward looking approach to identifying what the breadth and scope of response should be within CBPFs, as well as their balance of strategy versus responsiveness and their capacity for incorporating resilience. Using an analysis of key financial data, global and country-level guidelines and evaluations, and annual and financial reports, this study situates CBPFs and their broader purpose as a humanitarian response mechanism in the context of current global policy debates. It undertakes a comparative analysis of ERFs and CHFs using global guidance and evaluations, and country case studies to situate the global analysis. The case studies examine the CBPFs present in the DRC, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Pakistan and Haiti. Each one considers questions of size and scale, and especially how the CBPFs support Consolidated Appeals Processes or alternative response plans. They also provide examples of complementary action between CBPFs, the CERF and other funding streams.

The study concludes that ERFs and CHFs, while nominally different for historical reasons, are more similar than stated in the long-standing guidance. Global guidance in place at the start of the research period was separate for ERFs and CHFs and tended, in places, to conflate the scale and the purpose of the Funds, and to cement unhelpful delineation between the two such as the explicit reference to NGO funding in the ERF guidance. The country studies confirm that while ERFs do tend to be smaller overall than CHFs, some (notably Pakistan and Haiti) have been very substantial and Ethiopia continues to be so. Other large ERFs have adopted strategic allocations, ultimately suggesting that the scale of any given Fund is as important a factor in its potential use as is its designation as a CHF or ERF. An overarching conclusion of the study, therefore, is that CHFs and ERFs should be viewed as variations on a single type of funding mechanism, albeit with a range of scales and a variety of funding modalities. The characteristics of CBPFs should be driven primarily by the context in which they operate. Funds should be aligned with strategic priorities when scale allows and also responsive. CBPFs should be needs-driven and provide funding to the actors best placed to respond the needs targeted. OCHA’s updated guidance note, along with new management arrangements in OCHA FCS, takes significant strides in this direction, recognising the similarities between ERFs and CHFs and the need to rationalise and harmonise policy support to them.

Humanitarian Outcomes

The country studies include ERFs which have suffered from rapidly diminishing support, notably those that were set up, or re-energised as primary conduits for funding in the aftermath of natural disasters. As such, the study identifies the need to ensure that careful consideration is given to the opening of CBPFs in the aftermath of rapid onset emergencies. While it is clearly useful to have a pooled funding instrument in the aftermath of a large scale response, as one part of a set of funding tools (including the CERF and the START Fund), the capacity for funding levels to diminish quickly has to be taken into consideration and a flexible approach to Fund management considered. As well as being adapted to the context, CBPFs must be fit for purpose in terms of adequate management capacity. If a more flexible approach to activation and de-activation of CBPFs is considered, the management of human resources in an equally flexible and responsive fashion is critically important.

The report draws additional conclusions on the question of whether CBPFs should take a narrow or broad view of humanitarian assistance and/or support recovery, preparedness and early action. The advice from numerous evaluations is consistent and predictable: in the majority of cases, and especially for small ERFs, they have been designed to provide responsive allocations to unforeseen shocks or critical gaps; and CHFs, by virtue of having an emergency reserve, have had the same responsive capacity. Over and above this capacity, the CHF model has supported the UN led annual planning and prioritisation cycle. Guidance in place at the start of the research period allowed for considerable flexibility. CHFs have offered a much greater scope to support preparedness, early action and recovery if these are identified as priorities by the collective humanitarian system.

In addition, the issue of size and scale presents an interesting challenge to the suggestion that CBPFs should play a central role in resilience. In cases where CBPFs face a reduction in size, there is a clear tendency for them to re-prioritise in such a way that narrows their purpose towards acute needs. As a result, identifying resilience as a key role and responsibility of CBPFs may be problematic. Successfully funding resilience and preparedness requires a more stable funding source than CBPFs can currently offer. The report concludes that a better model would see development, recovery or preparedness instruments complementing humanitarian pooled funds and making cross referrals. Coordination, or indeed any kind of interaction between humanitarian and recovery, preparedness or any other type of funding instrument in the case study countries, was strikingly absent.

World: Country-Based Pooled Funding Mechanisms: Mapping and Comparative Analysis

Ethiopia - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 16 min ago
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, World, Yemen

Executive Summary

This study contributes to a broader effort to achieve clarity of purpose for Country Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). These Funds, at the disposal of UN Humanitarian Coordinators (HC)s, tend to operate in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), settings that absorb a high proportion of global humanitarian assistance. In FCAS, the humanitarian system plays a wide variety of roles, ranging from strictly life-saving response to disaster preparedness and resilience building. Whether or not the system as a whole should play a broad or narrow role remains a constant source of debate. Critical to analysis in the context of FCAS is the relationship between humanitarian and other forms of assistance: development (in the broad sense); recovery; disaster preparedness; stabilization; and the delivery of basic services in the absence of state systems. To better define the purpose of CBPFs, the report explores the interrelated issues of alignment and breadth of response: should these funds, in support of the humanitarian system, be focused on life-saving assistance, or should they should take a broader approach to humanitarian response, across the breadth of OCHA’s mandate and including components like early recovery, disaster preparedness and resilience building?

Looking at both Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) and Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs), this report examines the ambiguity of focus within each mechanism. It addresses how CBPFs can be better aligned, both with one another and with other aspects of humanitarian response (including development and preparedness funding). Additionally, the report takes a forward looking approach to identifying what the breadth and scope of response should be within CBPFs, as well as their balance of strategy versus responsiveness and their capacity for incorporating resilience. Using an analysis of key financial data, global and country-level guidelines and evaluations, and annual and financial reports, this study situates CBPFs and their broader purpose as a humanitarian response mechanism in the context of current global policy debates. It undertakes a comparative analysis of ERFs and CHFs using global guidance and evaluations, and country case studies to situate the global analysis. The case studies examine the CBPFs present in the DRC, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Pakistan and Haiti. Each one considers questions of size and scale, and especially how the CBPFs support Consolidated Appeals Processes or alternative response plans. They also provide examples of complementary action between CBPFs, the CERF and other funding streams.

The study concludes that ERFs and CHFs, while nominally different for historical reasons, are more similar than stated in the long-standing guidance. Global guidance in place at the start of the research period was separate for ERFs and CHFs and tended, in places, to conflate the scale and the purpose of the Funds, and to cement unhelpful delineation between the two such as the explicit reference to NGO funding in the ERF guidance. The country studies confirm that while ERFs do tend to be smaller overall than CHFs, some (notably Pakistan and Haiti) have been very substantial and Ethiopia continues to be so. Other large ERFs have adopted strategic allocations, ultimately suggesting that the scale of any given Fund is as important a factor in its potential use as is its designation as a CHF or ERF. An overarching conclusion of the study, therefore, is that CHFs and ERFs should be viewed as variations on a single type of funding mechanism, albeit with a range of scales and a variety of funding modalities. The characteristics of CBPFs should be driven primarily by the context in which they operate. Funds should be aligned with strategic priorities when scale allows and also responsive. CBPFs should be needs-driven and provide funding to the actors best placed to respond the needs targeted. OCHA’s updated guidance note, along with new management arrangements in OCHA FCS, takes significant strides in this direction, recognising the similarities between ERFs and CHFs and the need to rationalise and harmonise policy support to them.

Humanitarian Outcomes

The country studies include ERFs which have suffered from rapidly diminishing support, notably those that were set up, or re-energised as primary conduits for funding in the aftermath of natural disasters. As such, the study identifies the need to ensure that careful consideration is given to the opening of CBPFs in the aftermath of rapid onset emergencies. While it is clearly useful to have a pooled funding instrument in the aftermath of a large scale response, as one part of a set of funding tools (including the CERF and the START Fund), the capacity for funding levels to diminish quickly has to be taken into consideration and a flexible approach to Fund management considered. As well as being adapted to the context, CBPFs must be fit for purpose in terms of adequate management capacity. If a more flexible approach to activation and de-activation of CBPFs is considered, the management of human resources in an equally flexible and responsive fashion is critically important.

The report draws additional conclusions on the question of whether CBPFs should take a narrow or broad view of humanitarian assistance and/or support recovery, preparedness and early action. The advice from numerous evaluations is consistent and predictable: in the majority of cases, and especially for small ERFs, they have been designed to provide responsive allocations to unforeseen shocks or critical gaps; and CHFs, by virtue of having an emergency reserve, have had the same responsive capacity. Over and above this capacity, the CHF model has supported the UN led annual planning and prioritisation cycle. Guidance in place at the start of the research period allowed for considerable flexibility. CHFs have offered a much greater scope to support preparedness, early action and recovery if these are identified as priorities by the collective humanitarian system.

In addition, the issue of size and scale presents an interesting challenge to the suggestion that CBPFs should play a central role in resilience. In cases where CBPFs face a reduction in size, there is a clear tendency for them to re-prioritise in such a way that narrows their purpose towards acute needs. As a result, identifying resilience as a key role and responsibility of CBPFs may be problematic. Successfully funding resilience and preparedness requires a more stable funding source than CBPFs can currently offer. The report concludes that a better model would see development, recovery or preparedness instruments complementing humanitarian pooled funds and making cross referrals. Coordination, or indeed any kind of interaction between humanitarian and recovery, preparedness or any other type of funding instrument in the case study countries, was strikingly absent.

World: Country-Based Pooled Funding Mechanisms: Mapping and Comparative Analysis

DRC - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 16 min ago
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, World, Yemen

Executive Summary

This study contributes to a broader effort to achieve clarity of purpose for Country Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). These Funds, at the disposal of UN Humanitarian Coordinators (HC)s, tend to operate in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), settings that absorb a high proportion of global humanitarian assistance. In FCAS, the humanitarian system plays a wide variety of roles, ranging from strictly life-saving response to disaster preparedness and resilience building. Whether or not the system as a whole should play a broad or narrow role remains a constant source of debate. Critical to analysis in the context of FCAS is the relationship between humanitarian and other forms of assistance: development (in the broad sense); recovery; disaster preparedness; stabilization; and the delivery of basic services in the absence of state systems. To better define the purpose of CBPFs, the report explores the interrelated issues of alignment and breadth of response: should these funds, in support of the humanitarian system, be focused on life-saving assistance, or should they should take a broader approach to humanitarian response, across the breadth of OCHA’s mandate and including components like early recovery, disaster preparedness and resilience building?

Looking at both Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) and Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs), this report examines the ambiguity of focus within each mechanism. It addresses how CBPFs can be better aligned, both with one another and with other aspects of humanitarian response (including development and preparedness funding). Additionally, the report takes a forward looking approach to identifying what the breadth and scope of response should be within CBPFs, as well as their balance of strategy versus responsiveness and their capacity for incorporating resilience. Using an analysis of key financial data, global and country-level guidelines and evaluations, and annual and financial reports, this study situates CBPFs and their broader purpose as a humanitarian response mechanism in the context of current global policy debates. It undertakes a comparative analysis of ERFs and CHFs using global guidance and evaluations, and country case studies to situate the global analysis. The case studies examine the CBPFs present in the DRC, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Pakistan and Haiti. Each one considers questions of size and scale, and especially how the CBPFs support Consolidated Appeals Processes or alternative response plans. They also provide examples of complementary action between CBPFs, the CERF and other funding streams.

The study concludes that ERFs and CHFs, while nominally different for historical reasons, are more similar than stated in the long-standing guidance. Global guidance in place at the start of the research period was separate for ERFs and CHFs and tended, in places, to conflate the scale and the purpose of the Funds, and to cement unhelpful delineation between the two such as the explicit reference to NGO funding in the ERF guidance. The country studies confirm that while ERFs do tend to be smaller overall than CHFs, some (notably Pakistan and Haiti) have been very substantial and Ethiopia continues to be so. Other large ERFs have adopted strategic allocations, ultimately suggesting that the scale of any given Fund is as important a factor in its potential use as is its designation as a CHF or ERF. An overarching conclusion of the study, therefore, is that CHFs and ERFs should be viewed as variations on a single type of funding mechanism, albeit with a range of scales and a variety of funding modalities. The characteristics of CBPFs should be driven primarily by the context in which they operate. Funds should be aligned with strategic priorities when scale allows and also responsive. CBPFs should be needs-driven and provide funding to the actors best placed to respond the needs targeted. OCHA’s updated guidance note, along with new management arrangements in OCHA FCS, takes significant strides in this direction, recognising the similarities between ERFs and CHFs and the need to rationalise and harmonise policy support to them.

Humanitarian Outcomes

The country studies include ERFs which have suffered from rapidly diminishing support, notably those that were set up, or re-energised as primary conduits for funding in the aftermath of natural disasters. As such, the study identifies the need to ensure that careful consideration is given to the opening of CBPFs in the aftermath of rapid onset emergencies. While it is clearly useful to have a pooled funding instrument in the aftermath of a large scale response, as one part of a set of funding tools (including the CERF and the START Fund), the capacity for funding levels to diminish quickly has to be taken into consideration and a flexible approach to Fund management considered. As well as being adapted to the context, CBPFs must be fit for purpose in terms of adequate management capacity. If a more flexible approach to activation and de-activation of CBPFs is considered, the management of human resources in an equally flexible and responsive fashion is critically important.

The report draws additional conclusions on the question of whether CBPFs should take a narrow or broad view of humanitarian assistance and/or support recovery, preparedness and early action. The advice from numerous evaluations is consistent and predictable: in the majority of cases, and especially for small ERFs, they have been designed to provide responsive allocations to unforeseen shocks or critical gaps; and CHFs, by virtue of having an emergency reserve, have had the same responsive capacity. Over and above this capacity, the CHF model has supported the UN led annual planning and prioritisation cycle. Guidance in place at the start of the research period allowed for considerable flexibility. CHFs have offered a much greater scope to support preparedness, early action and recovery if these are identified as priorities by the collective humanitarian system.

In addition, the issue of size and scale presents an interesting challenge to the suggestion that CBPFs should play a central role in resilience. In cases where CBPFs face a reduction in size, there is a clear tendency for them to re-prioritise in such a way that narrows their purpose towards acute needs. As a result, identifying resilience as a key role and responsibility of CBPFs may be problematic. Successfully funding resilience and preparedness requires a more stable funding source than CBPFs can currently offer. The report concludes that a better model would see development, recovery or preparedness instruments complementing humanitarian pooled funds and making cross referrals. Coordination, or indeed any kind of interaction between humanitarian and recovery, preparedness or any other type of funding instrument in the case study countries, was strikingly absent.

World: Long range forecast product for Africa valid for July-August-September and August-September-October 2015 seasons (Issued on June 29, 2015)

Uganda - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 19 min ago
Source: ACMAD Country: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, World

Highlights

  • During July to October 2015, Below average precipitation is very likely over coastal part of Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon.

  • Near to below average precipitation is very likely over South Sudan, Uganda Western Ethiopia, North-East of DRC, Northern-west Kenya from July to October 2015.

  • Above average precipitation is likely over Senegal, Southern half of Mali, Southern Mauritania, over Burkina Faso, Western Niger and around lake Chad, from July to October 2015.

  • During July to October 2015 above average temperature is very likely over Sudan, Eritrea, most of Libya, Egypt, Chad, Northern Ethiopian and West Niger.

  • Near to above average temperature is very likely over most of Algeria, Morocco, Niger, western Libya, Mauritania, northern Burkina Faso, Nigeria, CAR and southern Chad, south-Sudan and Ethiopian from July to October.

World: Long range forecast product for Africa valid for July-August-September and August-September-October 2015 seasons (Issued on June 29, 2015)

Sudan - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 19 min ago
Source: ACMAD Country: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, World

Highlights

  • During July to October 2015, Below average precipitation is very likely over coastal part of Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon.

  • Near to below average precipitation is very likely over South Sudan, Uganda Western Ethiopia, North-East of DRC, Northern-west Kenya from July to October 2015.

  • Above average precipitation is likely over Senegal, Southern half of Mali, Southern Mauritania, over Burkina Faso, Western Niger and around lake Chad, from July to October 2015.

  • During July to October 2015 above average temperature is very likely over Sudan, Eritrea, most of Libya, Egypt, Chad, Northern Ethiopian and West Niger.

  • Near to above average temperature is very likely over most of Algeria, Morocco, Niger, western Libya, Mauritania, northern Burkina Faso, Nigeria, CAR and southern Chad, south-Sudan and Ethiopian from July to October.

World: Long range forecast product for Africa valid for July-August-September and August-September-October 2015 seasons (Issued on June 29, 2015)

Niger - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 19 min ago
Source: ACMAD Country: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, World

Highlights

  • During July to October 2015, Below average precipitation is very likely over coastal part of Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon.

  • Near to below average precipitation is very likely over South Sudan, Uganda Western Ethiopia, North-East of DRC, Northern-west Kenya from July to October 2015.

  • Above average precipitation is likely over Senegal, Southern half of Mali, Southern Mauritania, over Burkina Faso, Western Niger and around lake Chad, from July to October 2015.

  • During July to October 2015 above average temperature is very likely over Sudan, Eritrea, most of Libya, Egypt, Chad, Northern Ethiopian and West Niger.

  • Near to above average temperature is very likely over most of Algeria, Morocco, Niger, western Libya, Mauritania, northern Burkina Faso, Nigeria, CAR and southern Chad, south-Sudan and Ethiopian from July to October.

World: Long range forecast product for Africa valid for July-August-September and August-September-October 2015 seasons (Issued on June 29, 2015)

Kenya - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 19 min ago
Source: ACMAD Country: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, World

Highlights

  • During July to October 2015, Below average precipitation is very likely over coastal part of Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon.

  • Near to below average precipitation is very likely over South Sudan, Uganda Western Ethiopia, North-East of DRC, Northern-west Kenya from July to October 2015.

  • Above average precipitation is likely over Senegal, Southern half of Mali, Southern Mauritania, over Burkina Faso, Western Niger and around lake Chad, from July to October 2015.

  • During July to October 2015 above average temperature is very likely over Sudan, Eritrea, most of Libya, Egypt, Chad, Northern Ethiopian and West Niger.

  • Near to above average temperature is very likely over most of Algeria, Morocco, Niger, western Libya, Mauritania, northern Burkina Faso, Nigeria, CAR and southern Chad, south-Sudan and Ethiopian from July to October.

World: Long range forecast product for Africa valid for July-August-September and August-September-October 2015 seasons (Issued on June 29, 2015)

Ethiopia - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 19 min ago
Source: ACMAD Country: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, World

Highlights

  • During July to October 2015, Below average precipitation is very likely over coastal part of Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon.

  • Near to below average precipitation is very likely over South Sudan, Uganda Western Ethiopia, North-East of DRC, Northern-west Kenya from July to October 2015.

  • Above average precipitation is likely over Senegal, Southern half of Mali, Southern Mauritania, over Burkina Faso, Western Niger and around lake Chad, from July to October 2015.

  • During July to October 2015 above average temperature is very likely over Sudan, Eritrea, most of Libya, Egypt, Chad, Northern Ethiopian and West Niger.

  • Near to above average temperature is very likely over most of Algeria, Morocco, Niger, western Libya, Mauritania, northern Burkina Faso, Nigeria, CAR and southern Chad, south-Sudan and Ethiopian from July to October.

World: Long range forecast product for Africa valid for July-August-September and August-September-October 2015 seasons (Issued on June 29, 2015)

Eritrea - ReliefWeb News - 5 hours 19 min ago
Source: ACMAD Country: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, World

Highlights

  • During July to October 2015, Below average precipitation is very likely over coastal part of Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon.

  • Near to below average precipitation is very likely over South Sudan, Uganda Western Ethiopia, North-East of DRC, Northern-west Kenya from July to October 2015.

  • Above average precipitation is likely over Senegal, Southern half of Mali, Southern Mauritania, over Burkina Faso, Western Niger and around lake Chad, from July to October 2015.

  • During July to October 2015 above average temperature is very likely over Sudan, Eritrea, most of Libya, Egypt, Chad, Northern Ethiopian and West Niger.

  • Near to above average temperature is very likely over most of Algeria, Morocco, Niger, western Libya, Mauritania, northern Burkina Faso, Nigeria, CAR and southern Chad, south-Sudan and Ethiopian from July to October.

Syndicate content