Policy Brief: COVID-19 & Conflict Sensitivity - World - ReliefWeb

rumputhijauau.blogspot.com

22 April 2020

COVID-19 has caused unprecedented disruption globally. Countries around the world are struggling to contain the pandemic and deal with a high number of hospitalisations and deaths. As the virus spreads to more fragile and conflictaffected contexts, the outcome may be devastating. Ongoing violent conflict and weak health infrastructure is already prohibiting the delivery and administration of testing and treatment resources. Health workers may not be able to reach certain communities because of insecurity and may become victims themselves. Where the risk posed by COVID-19 intersects with other vulnerabilities, including those associated with poverty, displacement, gender, and age, its impact will be more severe. Notably, in crowded refugee/internally displaced persons camps, insufficient provision of basic services like clean water and healthcare will accelerate the spread of the disease.

World Vision International and Search for Common Ground are international non-governmental organisations (INGO) contributing to the COVID-19 response in areas affected by some of the world’s most protracted conflicts. We have serious concerns about the immediate and long-term impact of COVID-19 and ongoing response measures on the well-being of people, in particular of children and young people, living in conflict-affected and fragile contexts. In this brief, we aim to highlight the need for a conflict-sensitive response and provide recommendations for strengthening European donors’ global COVID-19 response.

As leading donors and in line with commitments to integrated responses to crises and fragility, including the European Union’s (EU) Integrated Approach, the EU and European government’s public health responses to COVID-19 in conflictaffected contexts must give local conflict dynamics due attention. Responses that do not consider the socio-political and human security context will likely fail and can worsen conflict-dynamics, as we have learned from our interventions in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo to fight Ebola. Conflict-sensitivity is essential to reduce risks of attacks on treatment centres, resistance to health instructions, and new social tensions in the communities we serve.

From a conflict sensitivity perspective, we have three concerns about COVID-19 interventions in conflict-affected contexts:

1. Interventions might not reach vulnerable groups. In contexts where mistrust of state authorities and suspicion of ‘outsiders’ is high, notably fragile and conflict-affected areas, communities may reject public health interventions, sometimes violently. This makes it even more difficult for information and aid to reach those in need, especially as most aid is channelled via international organisations to national authorities and many information campaigns rely on a ‘credibility based on authority’ approach. Among communities who have had their lives upended by violent conflict, and particularly among people disempowered by gender- and other inequalities, ill-adapted information campaigns risk triggering ‘fatalistic’ responses that reduce adoption of protective measures. Rumours about specific social groups, outbreaks, responses, and treatments are likely to spread rapidly through interpersonal relationships as well as online and via traditional media sources. This can cause stigmatization of certain groups, further fracturing a weak social fabric.

2. The role of children and young people will not be specifically considered. COVID-19 risks leaving children and young people more exposed to multiple forms of violence, from food insecurity to physical safety concerns, and potentially at greater exposure to recruitment into armed groups or violent gangs. At the same time, children and young people are particularly important partners to ensure buy-in of the response measures and contribute to a credible recovery phase. Young people often have both knowledge and credibility that more formal actors lack, particularly with their peers and harder to reach communities.

3. Ill-adapted COVID-19 responses can further fracture social cohesion. To rapidly respond to COVID-19 risks, some governments have followed a “security-first” approach to enforce the public health measures. In places where relationships between security forces and civilians are already poor, this can further aggravate relations and create deeper schisms to repair. For instance, in Nigeria, there have already been more than 20 deaths associated with the security enforcement of quarantine and social distancing requirements and a soldier was sanctioned for threatening sexual violence against women while enforcing the lockdown in Delta State.

On the other hand, if designed right, COVID-19 responses can address and even reduce conflict and fragility risks. In communities where divisions and mistrust are high, health issues can be one of the few topics that can bring people together across dividing lines, both at the national and international levels. In this way, interventions to protect populations from this pandemic can also foster opportunities for positive, durable change if they are sensitive to the risks above; take a longer-term view; prioritise inclusivity, community participation, and collaboration in responses; and are paired with continued or renewed support for existing local conflict transformation mechanisms.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

"conflict" - Google News
May 05, 2020 at 11:00PM
https://ift.tt/35zNvm5

Policy Brief: COVID-19 & Conflict Sensitivity - World - ReliefWeb
"conflict" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3bZ36xX
https://ift.tt/3aYn0I8

Bagikan Berita Ini