Ukraine

Ukraine: Livelihoods Situation Assessment Report, August 2022

Attachments

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Alongside the on-going Red Cross Red Crescent (RCRC) Movement emergency response to the escalation of conflict in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Red Cross Society (URCS) has initiated a process of strategic thinking for early recovery of livelihoods and building resilience of individuals and communities in Ukraine directly and indirectly affected by the conflict. To this end, the URCS has commissioned Spanish Red Cross (SpRC) to carry out a national assessment to analyse the impact of the escalation of the conflict on livelihoods and potential recovery options.
The focus of this assessment mission was to assess the specific impact of the escalation of conflict on FSL in Ukraine since February 24th, 2022 and the FSL recovery and provisioning needs to, based on both, propose FSL response options.

The FSL assessment team identified FSL response options that are recommended to URCS, based on the revision of secondary data, needs identified, and recommendations made by key informants. Ideally, the preferred options would be those that better respond to the FSL needs of the affected population in the context (rural, urban, semi-urban) in which URCS wants to work, considering at the same time its implementation capacity (or this capacity could be provided with the support of Movement partners).

Response options proposed require further discussion between the URCS and RCRC Movement partners. The assessment report can serve as a methodological guideline and logical basis to guide these further discussions.

Identified response options for FSL include actions towards the:

  • reinforcement of small-scale production1 , especially small-scale farming,

  • strengthening professional capacity and skills and support to (re)establish small businesses, and

  • improvement of market linkages at local level which allow small-scale producers and businesses to continue selling their stocks independently of the blockades and constraints of transport routes.

Organizational Development (OD) and Capacity Building were also considered in the assessment from the perspective of the FSL response implementation. The impact of the escalation of the conflict on the National Society, including OD and capacity needs for FSL response interventions, were analysed and options were developed accordingly. These were developed with reference to the URCS Strategy 2021-20252 , which although does not mention FSL explicitly, it includes ground for developing ad-hoc and integrated FSL interventions which contribute to the achievement of the URCS’ strategic aims, particularly those related to Emergency Preparedness and Response, Psychosocial Support, and Social services.

Some of the identified options require having sufficient management capacity at branch and chapter level which is not the case in some branches and chapters. In addition, Livelihoods recovery and provisioning programming will require adequate supervisory capacity at headquarter level which at the moment of conducting this assessment was limited to one person as Livelihoods Coordinator, who also supports the National Society to covering response needs in other sectors, such as shelter, CVA and relief. This, coupled with the current volatility of the security situation throughout Ukraine, which conditions can deteriorate without warning in any region of the country, made not possible to plan or expect delivery of FSL response activities throughout the country.

During the assessment, the coverage of FSL response interventions by districts were discussed with the National Society and refined through a series of discussions. Although URCS has a country wide network of branches, technical and resource capacities are not equal in all regions. FSL interventions and approaches will require to be coordinated, both among RCRC partners and with other humanitarian actors in the country, in order to avoid duplications and increased effectiveness and coverage. Participation in cluster coordination and cluster working groups was recommended by most key informants. All these points should be discussed during detailed FSL response planning, together with the alignment of the intensity of the response intervention to the progressive development of the National Society’s capacity. However, this should be realistic in size and scope allowing the National Society to maintain is humanitarian response capacity