1. “Children on the Move” in Emergencies November 2010

2. Children on the Move in Emergencies Break up of the system (social, economical) Destruction of the social canvas (social structures formal or endogenous, social practices and systems etc. Lack of formalised structures (public structures = absence of disaster preparedness) Absence of the government - partial involvement (PAK + GEO): wiliness but lack of means and expertise - total (SOU): the government being the cause of the crises… Creation of new = hybrid structures (a combination of western and traditional elements → not always functional) In the aftermath of a disaster (general conditions – characteristics)

3. -Trauma -Access to food -Health facilities -Disability problems -No access to education – collapse of the system (difficulties to set-up new premises) -Separated children (extended families, siblings) -Orphans -Trafficking → exploitation (labour, sexual exploitation…) -Violence -Birth registration -Dogmatisation (religious organisations…) -Break of family structure (dependency of external support: NGOs…) -Exposure to risks (increase related to population concentration): abuse, neglect (all forms) -Exacerbation of pre-existing protection problems (see above, health, early marriages, violence) Children in the aftermath of emergencies

4. Protection & Psychosocial support (36 months) to approximately 5’200 children through: 1- recreational activities in 35 Child Friendly Spaces (5’200 children) 2- individual support for the most vulnerable children through the Case management System (≈ 270 children) Combination of CP with: -NFI distribution -Construction and set-up of bakeries -Wash intervention (rehabilitation of water supply systems (46), construction of latrines (1’460)+ hygiene promotion) -Distribution of school equipments and furniture (50) Intervention in 2 phases: -Emergency phase: concentration on IDPs camps (structured or spontaneous) -Rehabilitation phase: return and relocation in the villages (origin or new instalments) Additional elements: -Awareness campaigns (community in general, parents, educational system etc.) -Involvement of parents (parents’ groups discussions: mothers and fathers) -Capacity Building of Staff -Active participation in Clusters’ meetings -Creation and very active participation in Child Protection Network (NGOs, few UN agencies and few local structures) Case study: Pakistan, earthquake Oct. 2005

5. Protection & Psychosocial support (18 months) to approximately 1’910 children through: 1- recreational activities in 10 Child Friendly Spaces (1’910 children) 2- individual support for the most vulnerable children through the Case management System (≈ 226 children) Intervention in 2 phases: Emergency phase: concentration on collective centres in Tbilisi Rehabilitation phase: return and relocation in the villages (origin or new instalments) or in “new settlements” area Additional elements: Awareness campaigns (community in general, parents, educational system etc.) Involvement of parents (parents’ groups discussions: mothers and fathers) Capacity Building of Staff Creation of Children Committees Active participation in Clusters’ meetings Pilot project on: “Child and Family Protection Network” – national and regional level with implication of INGOs, NGOs and GOs Case study: Georgia, armed conflict Aug. 2008

6. Protection & Psychosocial support to approximately 1’910 children through: 1- recreational activities in 39 Child Friendly Spaces and teenagers’ centres (≈ 8’700 children and teenagers) 2- individual support for the most vulnerable children through the Case management System (≈ 2’000 children between 2009-2010) Combination of CP with: -Camp Management activities (3 camps gathering ≈ 57’400 IDPs) -NFI distribution (activity stopped at end of 2007) -Shelters’ construction & maintenance (≈ 5’500 shelters built between 2008-2010) Additional elements + new developments during 2010: Awareness campaigns – very active at camp level Involvement of parents (parents’ groups discussions: mothers and fathers; centres’ committees) Capacity Building of Staff Creation of Children Committees Active participation in Clusters’ meetings Creation of CP Emergency Cells Partnership and involvement of the MoSW (presence in the camps and operational outside the camps) Intervention in the educational system outside the camps in El Geneina schools Case study: Sudan armed conflict since 2004

7. Obstacles, limits and challenges: -Very important: lack of security -Traditions and local practices as an obstacle (the perception of CP at the community/local national level – Pakistan, Sudan)) -Presence/absence of formal structures – public services -Presence/absence of pre-existing structures (traditional mechanisms or practices) -Government as an obstacle: Sudan -New = hybrid western system and response: “the grafting is hardly working or even a failure”… -Limited means (financial, human, logistics) -Lack of cultural understanding -> local understanding of CP (can also be considered as an external limit) -Lack of proper assessment (needs and existing means, practices, tools… - can also be considered as an external limit) -Jeopardising of “capacity building” due to staff turn-over (better job = better paid with UN or bigger NGOs…) -… Lessons learnt & Challenges

8. Last BUT NOT Least elements: -“double displacement” situation -From places of origin towards new settlements -From settlements (camps) to places of origin or even new areas -perpetration of risks and problems -Fears related to new environment (children being born in camps i.e.) -Exit strategy: -Not properly planned -Often very ambitious (or driven by donors’ requirements…) -Lack/absence of CP public systems to ensure sustainability and handover -Lack of knowledge of traditional/local practices or mechanisms (to build upon…) -“go back to the grafting…” -Invisible or inaccessible children -“hearing/listening to the child” – to what extent? What about the feasibility in emergencies? -“a single NGO can’t do anything” principle – networking? Feasibility? -Balance between “principles, rights & best practices” – direct intervention constraints: what priorities? -“do no harm approach” – to what extent is possible? How to avoid jeopardising of the principle? -Context understanding: early marriages in Sudan = mean of protection for the girls… -Mobility = life -Repressive way versus “urgent response” -Links with other project Challenges and questions…