55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The impact of COVID-19 on the living and survival conditions of internally displaced persons in Burkina Faso

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In recent years, as in other parts of the Sahel, the threat of terrorism has escalated in Burkina Faso. In 2019, this country hosted the fourth highest number of new conflict-related internal displaced persons (IDPs) in the world. These people have to cope simultaneously with the full spectrum of environmental, social and health-related stresses in the long, medium and short term, respectively. We seek to compare the living conditions of IDPs before and during the lockdown implemented by the authorities (between 27 March and 5 May 2020) to contain the spread of the virus. Interviews were conducted with 106 IDPs in Kongoussi (Central-Northern region). Although no respondent reported having been directly affected by the virus, 84.9% of the IDPs surveyed had no income-generating activities during the lockdown and the remaining 15.1% who continued to work reported that their activities had been greatly scaled-down. For a large majority of them, their living conditions, already described as difficult under ‘normal’ circumstances (insufficient food, insignificant financial assistance, or difficult access to health care), further deteriorated. In addition, IDPs were unable to leave the camps or regions where they were located to search for better living conditions or to return home. Lastly, 96.2% of respondents believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would have a negative impact on their future. These IDPs, like many in the sub-region and around the world, therefore require urgent assistance from the authorities and humanitarian NGOs, as the slightest new stress is likely to considerably worsen their already vulnerable state.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Impact of Rainfall on the First Out-Migration: A Multi-level Event-History Analysis in Burkina Faso

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            COVID-19 pandemic and economic cost; impact on forcibly displaced people

            Dear Editor, We read with great interest the recent publication of illness among travelers returning from a mass gathering of religious purpose between August 2015 and April 2019 [1]. The current outbreak of COVID-19 is estimated to cost $1 trillion to world's economy during year 2020. According to experts this impact is even worse than Great Financial Crisis that world faced in 2007–2008 [2,3]. Countries are cutting interest rates and revising their expenditures and might have to cut donations to different programs run by United Nations [2]. There are 70.8 million forcibly displaced people in the world, among these there are 40.3 million internally displaced people (IDPs), 25.9 million refugees and 3.5 million asylum seekers. Factors contributing to the low standards of living for these people include lack of space, poor healthcare facilities, high population density, and low levels of education [4]. People in refugee camps are already fighting for basic necessities of life and are currently under high risk of acquiring COVID-19. There are inadequate facilities for sanitation, washing and disinfection in these refugee camps [5]. Furthermore, unviability of precautionary equipment like hand sanitizer, soaps, disinfectants, masks and high population density makes the scenario worse. These refugee camps are mainly monitored and run by UNHCR. The funding system of UNHCR is entirely dependent on voluntary donations from different rich governments across the globe [4]. America, European Union, Scandinavian countries along with some other strong economies are main donors of UNHCR (Fig. 1) . Data analysis revealed that 15 top economies of the world are badly hit by this COVID-19 outbreak. There is a sharp decrease in economic activities ranging from decline in restaurant and hotel bookings, air travels, fuel consumption, retail sector and even media industry [2,3]. This economic crunch will have an effect on donation programs of these countries in coming months. Fig. 1 Donations for UNHCR in 2019 [Data extracted from 4]. Fig. 1 Till now, 196 countries are hit by this pandemic and countries have to spend a lot more money in their own health and public welfare sector [4]. There are chances that UNHCR will face a drop in funds. This will further worsen the situation for these displaced people including 37 million children living in these camps [5,6]. World has to act smartly in order to prevent another human crisis in coming months. Periodic diarrhea, malaria and polio cases had been reported from these refugee settlements in the past [6]. It is high time for global community to act swiftly to save these lives. Funding Not Applicable. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evidence on the Effectiveness of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Interventions on Health Outcomes in Humanitarian Crises: A Systematic Review

              Background Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions are amongst the most crucial in humanitarian crises, although the impact of the different WASH interventions on health outcomes remains unclear. Aim To examine the quantity and quality of evidence on WASH interventions on health outcomes in humanitarian crises, as well as evaluate current evidence on their effectiveness against health outcomes in these contexts. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted of primary and grey quantitative literature on WASH interventions measured against health outcomes in humanitarian crises occurring from 1980–2014. Populations of interest were those in resident in humanitarian settings, with a focus on acute crisis and early recovery stages of humanitarian crises in low and middle-income countries. Interventions of interest were WASH-related, while outcomes of interest were health-related. Study quality was assessed via STROBE/CONSORT criteria. Results were analyzed descriptively, and PRISMA reporting was followed. Results Of 3963 studies initially retrieved, only 6 published studies measured a statistically significant change in health outcome as a result of a WASH intervention. All 6 studies employed point-of-use (POU) water quality interventions, with 50% using safe water storage (SWS) and 35% using household water treatment (HWT). All 6 studies used self-reported diarrhea outcomes, 2 studies also reported laboratory confirmed outcomes, and 2 studies reported health treatment outcomes (e.g. clinical admissions). 1 study measured WASH intervention success in relation to both health and water quality outcomes; 1 study recorded uptake (use of soap) as well as health outcomes. 2 studies were unblinded randomized-controlled trials, while 4 were uncontrolled longitudinal studies. 2 studies were graded as providing high quality evidence; 3 studies provided moderate and 1 study low quality evidence. Conclusion The current evidence base on the impact of WASH interventions on health outcomes in humanitarian crises is extremely limited, and numerous methodological limitations limit the ability to determine associative, let alone causal, relationships.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                World Dev Perspect
                World Dev Perspect
                World Development Perspectives
                Elsevier Ltd.
                2468-0532
                2452-2929
                10 January 2022
                March 2022
                10 January 2022
                : 25
                : 100393
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Environmental Sciences and Management, UR SPHERES, University of Liège, Belgium
                [b ]The Hugo Observatory, UR SPHERES, University of Liège, Belgium
                [c ]Executive Secretariat of the National Council for Food Security, Ministry of Agriculture and Hydro Agricultural Development, Burkina Faso
                [d ]Department of Geography, University of Namur, Belgium
                [e ]Institute of Life, Earth and Environment, University of Namur, Belgium
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding authors at: Department of Geography, University of Namur, Rue de Bruxelles 61, 5000 Namur, Belgium.
                Article
                S2452-2929(22)00001-7 100393
                10.1016/j.wdp.2022.100393
                8743390
                35036662
                186c1f85-4c07-439f-bb4b-0e532c35eef1
                © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 14 December 2020
                : 5 September 2021
                : 4 January 2022
                Categories
                Research Paper

                burkina faso,idps,covid-19,terrorism,climate change,livelihoods
                burkina faso, idps, covid-19, terrorism, climate change, livelihoods

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content89

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors167