DOCSLIB.ORG

Kenya Dadaab Refugee Camps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kenya Dadaab Refugee Camps KENYA DADAAB REFUGEE CAMPS SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC MAPS AND DATABASE UNBCR-IRD OCTOBER 1999 .. Hagadera O:.-~~l00:::..._,;;;;200 km 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 10014 10013 10013 10012 10012 - D Black of refugees D Green belt o 0,2 0,4 km Source:! UNHCR census,July 1998 • Infrastructures 1 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Total ofpopulation 10014 10013 10013 10012 10012 Number of inhabitants D fram 6 ta 280 o fram 280 ta 365 from 365 ta 490 • fram 490 ta 700 • fram 700 ta 3069 D na inhabitant D Green belt o 0,2 Source: UNHCR œnsus,July 1998 • Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Square meters by refugee 10014 10013 10013 10012 Number of m2 10012 D trom 96 to 3674 ~ trom 75 to 96 trom 63 to 75 trom 53 to 63 • trom 34 to 53 •0 no inhabitant D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Source: UNHCR œnsus,JuIy 1998 • Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Percentage ofwomen 10014 10013 10013 Number of women 10012 (in %) 10012 [] fram 15 to 47,5 D fram 47,5 to 49 fram 49 to 51 fram 51 to 53 • fram 53 to 59 D no inhabitant D Green belt Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Percentage ofmen 10014 10013 10013 .. Number of men 10012 (in %) 10012 D fram 41 to 47 0 fram 47 to 49 fram 49 to 51 from 51 to 52,S • from 52,5 to 85 •0 no inhabitant D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Sexe ratio 10014 10013 10013 Sexe ratio 10012 • (in %) 10012 D tram 69 ta 91 0 fram 91 ta 97 tram 97 ta 104 fram 104 ta 111 • fram 111 ta 558 D• na inhabitant 0 Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km SOUral: UNHCA oenllIJs,July 1998 • Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Children under five 10014 10013 10013 Percentage of children 10012 under 5 (by block) 10012 D from 0 to 12,5 from 12,5to 14 from 14 to 15,5 • from 15,5 ta 18 1 • from 18 to 27,5 •[JQ] no inhabitant D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Number offamilies by block 10014 10013 10013 10012 10012 Number of families D tram 3 ta 68 LJ fram 68 to 95 tram 95 to 129 tram 129 ta 233 • trom 233 ta 640 D no lnhabitant o Green belt Source: UNHCA œnsus.July 1998 Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Family size: 1 person 10014 10013 10013 10012 10012 • Number of families D from 1 to 3 D from 3 to 8 from 8 to 24 from 24 to 69 from 69 to 201 D no inhabitant D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Source: UNHCR œnsus,JuIy 1998 Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Family size: from 2 to 4 persons 10014 10013 10013 Il 10012 10012 Number of families D from 2 ta 37 D fram 37 ta 87 from 87 ta 137 fram 137 ta 188 • from 188 ta 234 •0 no inhabitant 0 Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Source: UNHCA census,July 1998 • Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Family size: from 5 to 7 persons 10014 10013 10013 10012 Number of families 10012 D tram Ot023 E::J trom 23 to 35 • trom 35 ta 48 • trom 48 to 100 tram 100 to 321 [QII no Inhabitant D Green belt 0.2""'==0~,4 Sooroe: UNHCR œnsus,July 1998 o""= ....... km Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Family size: from 8 to 11 persons 10014 10013 10013 1 10012 10012 Number of families D fram 0 to 2 0 fram 2 to 5 fram 5 to 12 fram 12 to 27 • tram 27 ta 65 •[illJ no inhabitant 0 Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Source: UNHCR œnsus,July 1998 • Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Principal district of origin 10014 10013 10013 1 0 Districts of origin .. • D Afmadow 10012 0 10012 "0 Badade D o Baidoa D Bardera Bu'ale D Kismayo Mogadisho 1 !Jill no inhabitant D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Infrastructures Sourœ: UNHCR œnsus,July '998 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO Seeondary ethnie group in somalian refugees 10014 10014 10013 10013 Ethnie group (in %) Garjante Harti F"-J O,3t014 o 0,3to6 14 to 43 D 6t020 mean: 14 mean: 6 10012 Mirifle Absame 10012 o 1 t010 o 9t020 o 10to28 o 20t040 mean: 10 mean: 20 Reer Bar Harti-Garjante 012 00,4 IT!D no inhabitant D Green belt o 0,2 Source: UNHCR oensus,July 1998 Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 646 649 IFO Principal ethnic group in somalian refugees 10014 10014 10013 10013 Ethnie group (in %) Garjante [51J 14 to 37 37 to 50 mean: 37 Mirif1e Absame 10012 o 33t047 o 18t064 1001 o 47t064 064t098 mean: 47 mean: 64 Reer Bar Harti 059 011 to 15 mean: 13 [ITI] no inhabitant D Green belt o 0.2 Source: UNHCR œnsusJuly 1998 • Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 645 646 647 648 649 IFO 10014 Secondary district of origin 10014 10013 10013 Il Districts of origin 10012 D Afmadow 10012 [] Badade o Baidoa o Bardera Bu'a1e o Klsmayo Mogadisho 1 o [ill] no inhabitant ID Green belt 0~ ;;;;i;0.2~"""",,0.;,.,4 Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 ........ km Infrastructures 645 646 647 648 649 64S 646 647 648 649 IFO Ethnie group in somalian refugees: Baantuu 10014 10014 10013 10013 • • • tDD~ • 10012 10012 Number of refugees 500 250 • 50 • [ill] no inhabitant D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 • Infrastructures 64S 646 647 648 649 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY 10022 10022 . ' .'.. 10021 .... 10021 V"... • O...···· o .. .. D·.······ . .. 10020 ". 10020 <0,. '0".". D Block of refugees D Green belt 0===0;..,2==~0,4 km • Infrastructures Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Total ofpopulation 10022 10022 - 10021 10021 - o Number of inhabitants • [] fram 101 to 255 [] fram 255 to 335 o /J. (\ fram 335 to 430 10020 10020 uO\) • fram 430 to 555 - • fram 555 to 1088 [] Green belt o 0.2 0,4 km • Infrastructures Source: UNHCR œnsus,JuJyl998 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY o~qUaremeters by refugee o 10022 10022 10021 10021 0 Number of m2 • D from 11 0 ta 200 rn fram 86 ta 110 0 fram 59 ta 86 10020 <lOD • fram 48 ta 59 10020 fram 24 ta 48 •D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Infrastructures Source: UNHCA census,July 1998 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY A.. Percentage ofwomen vO 10022 10022 10021 10021 Number of women 0 (in%) • D tram 28 ta 47,S D tram 47,S ta 49 0 tram 49 ta 50,5 10020 <lOD tram 50,5 ta 52 10020 fram 52 ta 58,5 D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Infrastructures Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 • 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Purcentage ofmen 10022 10022 10021 10021 Nurnber of men o (in %) • D tram 41,5 to 48,5 Q D trom 48,5 to 50 trom 50 to 51 10020 <loD • trom 51 to 52,5 10020 • tram 52,S to 72,5 D Green belt o 0,2 0,4 km • Infrastructures Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Sexe ratio 10022 10022 - 10021 10021 Sexe ratio 0 (in %) • D fram 71 ta 94 D fram 94 to 100 0 fram 100 ta 105 10020 <yOD from 105 ta 112 10020 from 112 ta 260 •D Green belt 0 0,2 4km °r Infrastructures Source: UNHCR census.July 1998 • 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Children under five 10022 10022 - 10021 10021 Purcentage of children 0 under 5 (by block) • D fram 12,5 ta 15,5 fram 15,5 ta 17 0 fram 17 to 18,5 10020 <lOD trom 18,5 to 21 10020 • fram 21 ta 31 •D Green belt 0 0,2 4km °r Infrastructures Sauce: UNHCR census.July 1998 • 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY A Number offamilles by block ~O 10022 10022 10021 10021 o Number of families • D fram 24 to 64 ..·· Ul trom 64 to 82 O .: tram 82 ta 110 10020 ô!OÛ tram 110to 141 10020 • from 141 ta 342 D Green belt o 0,2 0,4 km Infrastructures Sou/ce: UNHCR œnsus,July 1998 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Family size:1 person 10022 10022 10021 10021 o Number of families • D tram 2 to 5 ~ tram 5to 14 o • tram 14 to 38 10020 tOD tram 38 to 104 10020 tram 104 to 279 D Green belt 0~=0;;,;;.2~~0,4 km Infrastructures Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Family size: from 2 to 4 persons 10022 10022 10021 10021 o Number of families • D from 9t029 Gd from 29 to 49 o from 49 to 69 10020 D from 69 to 89 10020 <VO • from 89to 109 o Green ben o 0.2 0,4 km • Infrastructures Scurœ: UNHCA census.JuIy 1998 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 ,--------,----------------,--1---------------,--1---------------.-1------------,-------- DAGAHALEY Family size: from 5 to 7 persons 10022 10022 - 10021 10021 0 l\Iumber of families • D fram 11 ta 17 C3 tram 17 ta 27 0 fram 27 ta 42 10020 fram 42 ta 67 10020 <loG fram 67 ta 104 •D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Infrastructures Source: UNHCR census,July 1998 1 • 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Family size: from 8 to 11 persons 10022 10022 10021 10021 0 Number of families • D tram 0 ta 2 tram 2 ta 3 0 tram 3 ta 5 10020 é00 • tram 5 ta 9 10020 de tram ta 16 D Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Infrastructures Sourœ: UNHCR census.July 1998 • 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Principal district of origin 10022 10022 10021 10021 Districts of origin ID Afmadow o o Bardera • Bu'ale o Jamame o D Jilib 10020 D Kismayo 10020 QOB Mogadisho o Green belt Infrastructures Source: UNHCR cenlU••July 111118 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY A Secondary district of origin vO 10022 10022 - 10021 10021 Districts of origin D Afmadow 0 l ! Bardera • Bu'ale D Jamame 0 D JlIib 10020 Kismayo 10020 <10° D Mogadlsho ID Green belt 0 0,2 0,4 km Infrastructures Source: UNHCR œnsu8,July 1998 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Principal ethnie group in somalian refugees 10022 10022 Ethnie group 10021 (in %) 10021 V Reer Bar D 47to 64 D 64 to 78 mean: 64 Mirifle Absame 0 o 2to25 o 32to67 • o 25 to40 D 67to94 0 mean: 25 mean: 67 10020 Harti-Absame Harti 10020 0 &loD 09 067,5 D Green belt 0 0,2 4km °r • Infrastructures Source: UNHCR cenlUl,July 1998 642 643 644 645 646 642 643 644 645 646 DAGAHALEY Seeondary ethnie group in somalian refugees 10022 10022 - Ethnie group (in %) 10021 10021 Harti D 2taS,5 EJ 8,5 ta 44 mean: 8,5 Mirifle Garjante O..···· D 0,5 ta 12 ~.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Energy Situation in the Dadaab Refugee Camps, Kenya the Energy Situation in the Dadaab Refugee Camps, Kenya
    Research Paper Edited by Stephen Okello (GVEP International) Energy, Environment and Resources Department | May 2016 The Energy Situation in the Dadaab Refugee Camps, Kenya The Energy Situation in the Dadaab Refugee Camps, Kenya Preface The Moving Energy Initiative (MEI) is a collaboration between GVEP International, Chatham House, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and Practical Action Consulting. The MEI seeks to identify how innovation in policy and practice within the humanitarian sector can improve access to sustainable energy among displaced populations and camp operators. Funded by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID), the initiative seeks to develop, research and test appropriate sustainable energy solutions, as well as innovative delivery models for energy solutions. As part of initial research intended to inform subsequent phases of the project, the MEI carried out an energy survey in 2015 in the Dadaab refugee camps in Kenya. This paper has been written by GVEP International, with copy-editing and production support from Chatham House. Its purpose is to present the results from the 2015 field study. The paper is a summary of the survey report – the whole report can be obtained on request from GVEP International ([email protected]). 1 | Moving Energy Initiative The Energy Situation in the Dadaab Refugee Camps, Kenya Field Survey Background information The Dadaab refugee camps are located in Garissa County, in northeastern Kenya. The complex consists of five sub-camps, and covers an area of 50 square kilometres. As of March 2015, the Dadaab area was the fourth-largest population centre in Kenya, with a total refugee population of 351, 538.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf | 78.05 Kb
    Inter-cluster Rapid Assessment Report IDPs in Afmadow town, Lower Juba region 17-23 July, 2016 Background Afmadow town which is located 157 km from Dhobley and 120km from Kismayo sea port city has been experiencing man- made and natural disasters including drought, water problems, water borne diseases, IDP influx from Middle Juba and other locations as a result of insecurity, floods and the search for humanitarian assistance. Afmadow town was recovered from “Al Shabaab by AMISOM/SNA on June, 2012. At the beginning of June 2016, the Jubba River broke its banks and floods affected an estimated 5,000 households (30,000people) in 45 villages in Bu’ale and Jilib districts mostly along the river including farmlands according to local elders.. As the result an estimated 800 IDPs households ( 4,800 people) mainly of Somali Bantu origin arrived in Afmadow resulting in an increase in number of IDPs by 64 per cent in the town to a total of 7,900 people. Food, WASH, Shelter/NFIs, improved nutrition and health services remain the key priority needs. From 17-23 July, with OCHA in the lead, humanitarian partners including WFP, IOM,WASDA, ARC, Adeso and WRRS and the Food Security and Livelihoods, Health, Education, and WASH cluster focal points, conducted a rapid assessment in Afmadow town to better understand the humanitarian situation of the IDPs and refugee returnees from Kenya and identify their immediate needs. General observations According to the local authority, the population of Afmadow town is estimated at 14,750 households (89,000 people) According to the local administration and IDPs leadership nearly 70-80 per cent of new arrivals of IDPs are women and children.
    [Show full text]
  • AVSI in Somalia Origin of the Project
    AICS – AID 11248 Emergency Action for the resilience of families and communities affected by drought in Jubaland June – December 2018 AVSI in Somalia Origin of the project • AVSI has worked in Kenya since 1986 • In Dadaab refugees’ camp since 2009 (BPRM donor) – Education and ToTs – Dialogue with local and national authorities – Facilitation for repatriation to Somalia (Lower Juba) / technical assistance to MoE • Drought affecting Lower Juba, specifically Afmadow, Qooqaani, Dobley and Diif, in 2017 AVSI in Somalia Target area (1) – Jubaland Federal State, Lower Juba AVSI in Somalia Target area (2): Afmadow District AVSI in Somalia Overview on the project General objective: To contribute to families’ resilience, residents, internally displaced and returnees affected by drought in the Lower Juba region in Somalia Specific objective: To increase the resilience of families, young people and communities in the Afmadow District by strengthening capacity and services in the areas of food security, WASH and protection Activities started: 12 June 2018 Duration: 6 months Partner: WRRS (Wamo Relief and Rehabilitation Services) Budget: 476,062 € of which € 450.567 AICS contribution AVSI in Somalia Beneficiaries Sector Direct beneficiaries Indirect beneficiaries Total Agriculture and food 1.900 2.850 4.750 security WASH 13.700 20.550 34.250 Protection 5.200 7.800 13.000 Total 20.800 31.200 52.000 AVSI in Somalia Launch of the project With local authorities and other stakeholders https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=i6zsyGfDDes AVSI in Somalia Sector 1 – Agriculture and food security Trainings on ASAL (Arid and Semi-Arid) techniques and alternative food production for 1,306 small farmers : 85% of the households have embraced the skills acquired and are using to increase their household’s food consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Dadaab, Kenya APRIL 2019
    OPERATIONAL UPDATE Dadaab, Kenya APRIL 2019 The first camp in Dadaab was Kambioos refugee camp was Since December 2014, Somali established in 1991. There are 3 closed on 31st March 2017 and refugees who decide to camps in Dadaab: Hagadera, Ifo2 refugee camp was closed on voluntarily return to their home Dagahaley and Ifo. 31st May 2018. country, receive UNHCR support in Kenya and Somalia. VOLUNTARY REPATRIATION FROM DADAAB FUNDING (AS AT 16 APRIL 2019) 79,670 USD 170.1 M Somali refugees have returned home since December 2014 requested for the Kenya situation 57% Funds received 15% Percentage of Dadaab population are children 211,086 Total Dadaab population as at 30 April 2019 63,138 Unfunded 85% Refugee children are enrolled in school in Dadaab camps POPULATION OF CONCERN AS AT 30 APRIL 2019 Country of Origin Somalia 203,324 Ethiopia 6,509 South Sudan 960 DR Congo 90 Burundi 78 Uganda 68 Sudan 36 Rwanda 11 Eritrea 4 Other 6 TOTAL: 211,086 www.unhcr.org 1 MONTHLY OPERATIONAL UPDATE Dadaab, Kenya / APRIL 2019 Voluntary Repatriation ■ During the month of April, five voluntary repatriation flights were organized to help return 344 individuals to Kismayo (287) and Mogadishu (57). ■ As at 30th April 2019, a total 79,670 refugees were facilitated to voluntarily go back to Somalia, from Dadaab refugee operations since the beginning of the process in 2014. ■ Facilitation of road movement remains suspended due to military operations en route to Kismayu, Baidoa and other major return areas. However, flight options remain open to refugees willing to return to Mogadishu, Kismayu and Baidoa.
    [Show full text]
  • Update on the Somali Refugee Emergency and Protracted Refugee Situation in Dadaab, Kenya
    Side Event to the 60th Session of the Executive Committee UNHCR/E Hockstein Update on the Somali Refugee Emergency and Protracted Refugee Situation in Dadaab, Kenya Briefing by Ms. Liz Ahua, UNHCR Representative in Kenya Mr. Guillermo Bettochi, UNHCR Representative for Somalia Tuesday, 29 September 09:00-10:00 Palais des Nations, Room XXIII BACKGROUND NOTE “Update on the Somali Refugee Emergency and Protracted Refugee Situation in Dadaab, Kenya” Since 2008, there has been a dramatic increase in the forced displacement of Somalis. Over 120,000 persons have entered Kenya as refugees in this period. In 2009 alone, over 50,000 new Somali refugees have arrived in Dadaab, a constellation of three camps in Kenya established in 1991. Dadaab was originally meant to accommodate a maximum of 90,000 refugees but is now teeming with more than three times that number. The influx continues at a monthly average of some 5,000 persons. Dadaab represents today both a protracted refugee situation and one of the most acute emergencies in the world. Extreme overcrowding and congestion characterize the crisis that is unfolding in the camps, with no space to establish or expand shelter, and sanitation, health and education facilities. The semi-arid conditions, limited resources and general poverty affecting the local host population, have compounded the situation. UNHCR and its partners have endeavoured to mount a determined emergency response. In August 2009, during his second visit to the country in a year, the High Commissioner proposed to the Government a five-prong strategy, which reiterated the call for the allocation by the authorities of land for the establishment of a fourth camp as pivotal for an effective response.
    [Show full text]
  • Gedo Intercluster Initial Investigation – September
    INTER -AGENCY DROUGHT ASSESSMENT IN LOWER JUBA REGION OF SOMALIA JANUARY 2017 INTER-AGENCY DROUGHT ASSESSMENT IN LOWER JUBA REGION – JANUARY 2017 Table of contents Executive summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Key findings --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Recommendations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Acronyms, abbreviations and definitions of Somalia terminologies --------------------------- 6 Acknowledgement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Introduction /context of the inter-agency assessment -------------------------------------------- 8 Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 Assessment findings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Impact of drought ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 Findings by cluster ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Food Security and Livelihoods --------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Education ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 Nutrition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 Water, Sanitation
    [Show full text]
  • Somalia: Al-Shabaab – It Will Be a Long War
    Policy Briefing Africa Briefing N°99 Nairobi/Brussels, 26 June 2014 Somalia: Al-Shabaab – It Will Be a Long War I. Overview Despite the recent military surge against Somalia’s armed Islamist extremist and self- declared al-Qaeda affiliate, Al-Shabaab, its conclusive “defeat” remains elusive. The most likely scenario – already in evidence – is that its armed units will retreat to small- er, remote and rural enclaves, exploiting entrenched and ever-changing clan-based competition; at the same time, other groups of radicalised and well-trained individ- uals will continue to carry out assassinations and terrorist attacks in urban areas, in- cluding increasingly in neighbouring countries, especially Kenya. The long connec- tion between Al-Shabaab’s current leadership and al-Qaeda is likely to strengthen. A critical breakthrough in the fight against the group cannot, therefore, be achieved by force of arms, even less so when it is foreign militaries, not the Somali National Army (SNA), that are in the lead. A more politically-focused approach is required. Even as its territory is squeezed in the medium term, Al-Shabaab will continue to control both money and minds. It has the advantage of at least three decades of Salafi-Wahhabi proselytisation (daawa) in Somalia; social conservatism is already strongly entrenched – including in Somaliland and among Somali minorities in neigh- bouring states – giving it deep reservoirs of fiscal and ideological support, even with- out the intimidation it routinely employs. An additional factor is the group’s proven ability to adapt, militarily and politically – flexibility that is assisted by its leadership’s freedom from direct accountability to any single constituency.
    [Show full text]
  • Refugee Status Appeals Authority New Zealand
    REFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY NEW ZEALAND REFUGEE APPEAL NO 76551 AT AUCKLAND Before: B L Burson (Member) Counsel for the Appellant: D Ryken Appearing for the Department of Labour: No Appearance Dates of Hearing: 28 & 29 July 2010 Date of Decision: 21 September 2010 DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] This is an appeal against the decision of a refugee status officer of the Refugee Status Branch (RSB) of the Department of Labour (DOL) declining the grant of refugee status to the appellant, a national of Somalia who has spent a number of years in South Africa as a recognised Convention refugee. [2] This is the second time the appellant has appeared before the Authority. He originally arrived in New Zealand in June 2008 and lodged an application for refugee status. He was interviewed by the RSB in respect of that claim on 31 July and 1 August 2008. By decision dated 21 November 2008 the RSB declined the appellant’s claim on the basis that having been recognised as a refugee in South Africa the appellant was entitled to the protection of that country. The appellant duly appealed to the Authority. By decision dated 4 August 2009 the Authority dismissed the appellant’s appeal. [3] On 12 October 2009, the appellant lodged proceedings by way of judicial review in the High Court. By decision dated 4 June 2010 the High Court quashed the decision of the Authority. Although the High Court was satisfied the Authority 2 had not committed any reviewable error itself, the appellant’s previous representative had failed to ensure that a letter from a witness confirming the appellant’s clan origins was not placed before the Authority and the High Court reached the view that the Authority should, as a matter of fairness, re-assess the appellant’s claim having regard to this evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Afmadow District Detailed Site Assessment Lower Juba Region, Somalia
    Afmadow district Detailed Site Assessment Lower Juba Region, Somalia Introduction Location map The Detailed Site Assessment (DSA) was triggered in the perspectives of different groups were captured2. KI coordination with the Camp Coordination and Camp responses were aggregated for each site. These were then Management (CCCM) Cluster in order to provide the aggregated further to the district level, with each site having humanitarian community with up-to-date information on an equal weight. Data analysis was done by thematic location of internally displaced person (IDP) sites, the sectors, that is, protection, water, sanitation and hygiene conditions and capacity of the sites and the humanitarian (WASH), shelter, displacement, food security, health and needs of the residents. The first round of the DSA took nutrition, education and communication. place from October 2017 to March 2018 assessing a total of 1,843 sites in 48 districts. The second round of the DSA This factsheet presents a summary of profiles of assessed sites3 in Afmadow District along with needs and priorities of took place from 1 September 2018 to 31 January 2019 IDPs residing in these sites. As the data is captured through assessing a total of 1778 sites in 57 districts. KIs, findings should be considered indicative rather than A grid pattern approach1 was used to identify all IDP generalisable. sites in a specific area. In each identified site, two key Number of assessed sites: 14 informants (KIs) were interviewed: the site manager or community leader and a women’s representative, to ensure Assessed IDP sites in Afmadow4 Coordinates: Lat. 0.6, Long.
    [Show full text]
  • DGMQ's Africa Field Program in Kenya
    DGMQ’s Africa Field Program in Kenya CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ), assisted by the Division of Global Health Protection, sponsors the Africa Field Program, administered from CDC’s Kenya office, which is dedicated to the improvement and promotion of health for refugees and immigrants. The DGMQ Africa Field Program’s major partners in this effort are the Kenya Medical Research Institute, International Organization for Migration, and UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Refugees in Africa y 2.7 million people with refugee or “refugee- like” status in Africa at the end of 2011 y 770,000 refugees in Kenya y 376,000 refugees in Ethiopia Core Activities y Coordinates activities to protect the health of refugees who resettle to the US y Conducts disease surveillance y Provides technical training and support y Builds capacity for healthcare partners y Strengthens international partnerships Women carrying water in Dadaab Refugee Camp. y Responds to outbreaks in Africa Dadaab and Kakuma Refugee Camps Role in Resettling African Refugees to Not far from the Somali border of Kenya lies the town the United States of Dadaab, home to over 450,000 refugees in what is Over the past 10 years, between 8,000 and 30,000 African the largest refugee camp in the world. The Kakuma refugees have resettled to the United States annually. To camp is closer to the border with Sudan, and has prevent infectious threats from entering the United States over 120,000 refugees. Refugees at both camps are and to promote refugee health, DGMQ faced with a host of medical problems which are compounded by the overcrowded conditions and y Develops guidelines to help physicians conduct medical limited access to care.
    [Show full text]
  • Forging Jubaland Community Perspectives on Federalism, Governance and Reconciliation
    RIFT VALLEY INSTITUTE MEETING REPORT FEBRUARY 2017 Forging Jubaland Community perspectives on federalism, governance and reconciliation The Interim Jubaland President, Ahmed Mohamed Islan, addresses the delegates during his inauguration ceremony in in Kismayu on September 12, 2015. Key points Participants • A peaceful settlement in Somalia is Joanna Crouch, Somalia Programme Officer, dependent on how a new system will be Saferworld implemented, rather than which new Peter Mackenzie, Somalia Country Director, system will be adopted. Saferworld (Chair) • The establishment of Jubaland has Hassan Dirye, SOSCENSA brought improvements in security and the delivery of public services, but the Abdi Al, Programme Adviser, Saferworld concentration of both authorities and Halima Farah, Somali Women’s Solidarity external assistance in the city of Kismayo Organization has created tensions with the peripheral areas. Idris Abdi Yarre, Saferworld Partner • In Jubaland, statebuilding—involving Ayaan Addulkadir Hared, Saferworld Partner elite bargaining—has been prioritized over social reconciliation, which has Introduction marginalized less powerful clans, youth On 22 April 2016, the Rift Valley Forum hosted and women. the launch of Saferworld’s report, Forging Jubaland, Community Perspectives on Federalism, Governance and • Surveys show there is public support Reconciliation. The creation of Jubaland state in for federalism as a mechanism to bring 2013 and the controversial appointment of Sheikh decision-making and service provision Ahmed Mohamed Islam (‘Madobe’) as President closer to the people. of its interim administration, supported by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), precipitated tensions and divisions in which has been especially weak in the Gedo, Somalia. In response, the Saferworld team in middle and lower Juba regions.
    [Show full text]
  • DOCC Joint Mission Report: Kismayo, Lower Juba Region, 16-17 July 2017
    DOCC Joint Mission Report: Kismayo, Lower Juba Region, 16-17 July 2017 I. Situation Overview Kismayo district which hosts Kismayo town, the state capital of Lower Juba, is a pastoral district divided into 3 livelihood zones; southern inland pastoral, comprised mostly of camels, goats/sheep and cattle rearing, southern rainfed which specializes in maize, cattle and goats rearing and Juba pastoral which specializes in cattle and goat rearing. The areas around Kismayo in Lower Juba mostly fall under the pastoral livelihood zone as well. The drought conditions that persist and the poor Gu rains have not replenished the pastures well enough, however, there is some pasture rejuvenation that came with the coastal rains around Kismayo. Reports indicate that the poor rains inland are seeing an increase in surrounding pastoralists migrating towards the greener pastures of Kismayo. The already depleted pastures will not be able to sustain the increase in livestock till the Deyr rains, putting livestock, the main livelihood of the area at risk. Drought conditions persist due to the poor Gu rains that prevailed in most parts of Lower Juba, impacting negatively on access to food, water and pastures. The poor harvests and deaths of livestock has seen a migration of the rural population from Lower Juba and Middle Juba into Kismayo town in search of better livelihoods. There are also people who fled from surrounding areas, particularly Middle Juba, where humanitarian partners have no access, due to conflict in Al Shabaab controlled areas. To date, there are 63,774 IDPs in Kismayo, an increase of 17,742 (61%) from 46,032 in November 2016.
    [Show full text]