Weekly Update #126
July 29, 2024

General Figures

Refugees from Ukraine recorded across Europe 

6,021,400

Last updated July 15 2024

Covers those granted refugee status, temporary asylum status, temporary protection, or statuses through similar national protection schemes, as well as those recorded in the country under other forms of stay 

Refugees from Ukraine recorded beyond Europe

558,300

Last updated June 13 2024

Covers those granted refugee status, temporary asylum status, temporary protection, or statuses through similar national protection schemes, as well as those recorded in the country under other forms of stay 

Refugees from Ukraine recorded globally

6,579,700

Last updated July 15 2024

Source: UNHCR collation of statistics made available by the authorities

________________________________________________________

Conditions of Return Assessment Factsheet - Round 8 (July 2024)

IOM has conducted a continuing study on the Conditions of Returns Assessment (CORA) of Ukraine refugees.  To inform targeted interventions aimed at alleviating the vulnerability that stems from poor structural and social conditions in areas of return, the Conditions of Return Assessment (CoRA) provides granular data on where returns are occurring, the ways in which those who have returned are most vulnerable and why.

The Conditions of Return Assessment (CoRA) provides granular and actionable data on the conditions of returns in Ukraine, using a multisectoral location-level assessment (MSLA) methodology conducted with local authority key informants in areas of return across Ukraine. CoRA presents an analysis of the situation and needs of returnees in Ukraine, exploring the circumstances under which returns are taking place, and settlement-level conditions for all population groups, aiming to support evidence-based interventions that address the specific needs of returnees. 

Data collection for Round 8 took place between 15 April and 31 May 2024 across 858 locations in 284 hromadas in 23 oblasts in Ukraine.

KEY FINDINGS – DRIVERS OF SEVERITY

Livelihoods

• A notable share of returnees faced challenging employment conditions upon return. Key Informants (KIs) in 56 per cent of locations (481 locations) reported that few, or no residents seeking work could find suitable job opportunities.

• In 5 per cent of assessed locations with high severity livelihood conditions (39 locations) a maximum of 40 per cent of the displaced population had returned. These locations typically had few or no agricultural activities that had resumed, few unemployed residents who could find work, and only a few shops were open.

• The ability to afford basic food and non-food items remains a pressing concern in return locations. Key informants in nearly a fifth of assessed locations (19%) reported that most or all residents in these locations had reduced the quality and/or quantity of basic items and food (159 locations). 

Residential destruction

• Residential destruction was classified as high severity in 5 percent of locations (45 locations) across nine oblasts, over half of which were located in Kharkivska (27%, 12 locations) and Khersonska Oblasts (24%, 11 locations).

• KIs reported that the majority of assessed locations (95%, 813 locations) had experienced up to 40 per cent of residences destroyed by the war, where three quarters of returnees resided (75%, 2,659,000 individuals). While 5 per cent of locations (45 locations) suffered over 40 per cent of residential structures damaged or destroyed by the war. 

Utilities and services

• According to KIs, 21 per cent of locations (182 locations), hosting 59 per cent of the returnees, reported damage to schools. Road infrastructure was also damaged in 14 per cent of the assessed locations (122 locations), impacting 38 per cent of the returnees. Damage to health clinics was reported by KIs in less than a fifth of locations (13%, 108 locations), where 43 per cent of the returnees resided.

• Disruptions to electricity (14% of locations assessed, 120 locations) and water (12%, 99 locations) supplies affected more than one in ten returnees, each (298,000 and 311,000 individuals, respectively) in the month preceding the assessment. Since the previous round, the share of assessed locations in which KIs reported electricity disruptions decreased by 3 percentage points, suggesting improvements in the reconstruction of electrical supply networks. 

Public life

• KIs indicated concerns about community tensions in 23 per cent of assessed locations (199 locations), affecting 40 per cent of returnees (1,089,000 individuals). These concerns most often derived from the allocation of humanitarian aid.

• KIs in 7 per cent of locations assessed in both rounds (57 locations), reported that residents only leave their homes when required to, resulting in quiet, sparsely populated streets. A third of these locations were located in Sumska Oblast (19 locations, 33%). Once again, the disruption to daily life can be attributed to the increased hostilities in the oblast, resulting in continued mandatory evacuations. 

Safety and security

• Up to 24 per cent of assessed locations had been subject to missile strikes (203 locations), shelling and long-range attacks in the month preceding the assessment. In over two thirds of locations with high severity of safety and security conditions (49 out of 71), up to 40 per cent of the displaced population had returned. Large variations in return rates were recorded in locations where KIs reported high severity conditions for safety and security, suggesting that the security situation is not necessarily a primary factor when considering return. 

• KIs reported that residents were aware of the presence of mines and/or unexploded ordnance (UXOs) in 15 per cent of the assessed locations (128 locations), consistent with the previous round, these were primarily located in Kharkivska, Sumska, and Donetska Oblasts. 

Source: IOM

Source: Health Cluster, WHO 

________________________________________________________

Final evaluation report Ukraine response, Depaul & CAFOD/DEC (June 2024)

The Humanitarian Impact Institute (HII) was commissioned to conduct this independent, external evaluation of the Crisis Response Programme funded by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), led by Depaul Ukraine (DPU) across Kyivska, Odeska, Kharkivska, and Zaporizka oblasts. The Crisis Response Programme covers multiple projects over three phases/projects: Phase 1 (complete), Phase 2a (complete), and Phase 2b (ongoing to February 2025). The evaluation aimed to inform Phase 2b programming and assess the performance of Phases 1 and 2a, with a focus on learning outcomes.

The objectives were methodically designed to evaluate engagement and adherence to Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS); scrutinize programme outcomes for effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and impact; identify practices, challenges, and lessons learned; and provide insights for future programmatic efforts by CAFOD, Depaul International (DPI) and Depaul Ukraine.

Adhering to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) criteria and CHS quality commitments, the evaluation team used desk reviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and structured observation visits.

The findings present a narrative of DPU's resilience and collaborative efforts within an international network, which significantly influenced its impact and community resilience in crisis situations.

The findings present a narrative of Depaul Ukraine's outstanding ability to respond quickly and adapt its operations to the changing demands of crisis situations, while also building on the collaborative initiatives that facilitated cross-border operations and robust safeguarding measures. This integrated approach not only increased the efficiency of the crisis response, but also contributed to strengthening the resilience of communities by providing comprehensive services and optimising the use of resources. However, some challenges persisted, hindering access to services for some groups (residents of frontline communities, people with disabilities, etc). This highlighted the need to effectively address barriers to aiding vulnerable populations.

Depaul Ukraine demonstrated active commitment to client engagement in both the planning and implementation phases of the programme by providing clients with multiple channels for input and feedback. However, social stigma and limited awareness sometimes hindered the effectiveness of such engagement. Proposed strategies to increase engagement include group activities and increased outreach efforts. Nonetheless, DPU services received overwhelmingly positive feedback, particularly in critical areas such as financial assistance, food distribution and psychological support.

Depaul Ukraine has made efforts to coordinate with both government agencies and other NGOs. However, the identified coordination challenges and the general lack of awareness about the work of Depaul Ukraine among other stakeholders highlight the need for further capacity building initiatives and role clarification within the collaborative frameworks.

Key Recommendations

• Resource and enhance the community feedback mechanism (CFM) to ensure that there is a full feedback loop 

• DPU should enhance internal information sharing, learning and ways to respond to internal feedback through the introduction of new or improved tools/approaches, selected by a taskforce of team members from across DPU

• Develop a proactive stakeholder engagement plan that includes objectives, roles, resources, timelines and collaboration/information approaches for each identified stakeholder groups by priority. This will enhance coherence, efficiency and sustainability of the response.

• Continue to provide the combination of services to clients in Ukraine if the Response continues, as this range of services is helping to meet client needs while they are living insecurely.

• Explore opportunities to resource and enhance advocacy for specific issues of concern to Depaul’s mandate in Ukraine (e.g. the rights of displaced persons from the occupied territories, those excluded from receiving support and documentation).

• Develop a localisation plan with an aim to increase the shift in power to local/national partners

In summary, this evaluation highlights the positive contribution of Depaul Ukraine to the humanitarian landscape of Ukraine and offers insights to strengthen future endeavours, ensuring efficacy, sustainability and inclusivity in humanitarian initiatives.

Sources: CAFOD, Depaul International

Ukraine's hopes and challenges after long wait for F-16s

The first F-16 fighter jets are set to arrive in Ukraine from Nato member states, after many months of preparation and pilot training.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said they are essential to help Ukrainians push back against Russia's aerial dominance and “unblock the skies”. Russian forces have been preparing for the Ukrainian F-16s too.

They have targeted a number of Ukrainian military airfields and there are growing concerns that these long-awaited jets will be attacked and destroyed soon after they arrive.

In July alone, at least three airfields have come under attack: Myrhorod and Kryvyi Rih in central Ukraine and one in southern Odesa region. Moscow claims it has destroyed five Ukrainian Su-27 fighter jets and one MiG-29, along with a radar and valuable Patriot air defence launchers.

Kyiv authorities are keeping mostly silent and the air force has refused a BBC request for comment, claiming on social media that the destroyed jets and air defence system were in reality decoys that had cost Russia several expensive Iskander missiles.

Decoys or not, Ukraine’s allies, and many Ukrainians themselves, fear there may be insufficient protection for the US-built F-16s. Until recently, Russia would have relied on surveillance or satellite imagery to spy on Ukraine’s air bases, so it never knew for sure if its missiles had struck their targets.

Now it has spy drones such as Zala, Supercam and Orlans that can send real-time images from deep inside Ukrainian territory, avoiding Ukraine’s electronic detection and jamming systems.

There is no indication that the F-16s have yet arrived in Ukraine, although Kyiv-based aviation expert Anatoliy Khrapchynsky suggests Russian forces are “probing” Ukrainian airfields because they believe they might be.

Only this month US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the transfer of F-16s was already under way from Denmark and the Netherlands. Some 65 F-16s have been pledged by Nato countries.

When in theatre they will roughly double the number of fighter jets currently at Ukraine’s disposal, which are all Soviet-era MiG-29s and Su-27s.

For Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky they cannot come a moment too soon, after an 18-month wait. This year Ukraine has been under huge threat from Russian glide bombs, which are basically dumb bombs fitted with pop-out wing kits and guidance modules to deliver precision strike stand-off capabilities, similar to the JDAM munitions from the United States.

Russia is churning out these add-on kits and these souped-up bombs have been wreaking havoc on the front lines. Around 3,000 were dropped in March alone, mostly from Su-34 fighter-bombers.

If Ukraine can protect its F-16s on the ground, the hope is that they could play an important part in pushing back the Russian aircraft to a point where the glide bombs can no longer target Ukrainian ground forces.

The F-16s would work alongside the limited number of Western-supplied surface to air missile systems such as Patriot and NASAMS which are already on the ground.

The F-16s won’t necessarily turn the tide of the war, but they will have a significant impact in attacks on the ground and in the air.

The question is whether there will be enough of them, and whether they can be protected on the ground.

Source: BBC

Agreement with Russia is ‘deal with the devil,’ adviser to Ukrainian president says

Signing an agreement with Russia to stop the war with Ukraine would amount to signing a deal with the devil, a top adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, as pressure mounts on the country to seek an end to more than two years of fighting.

A deal would only buy time for Russian President Vladimir Putin to strengthen his army and usher in another, potentially more violent chapter in the war, Mykhailo Podolyak told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday.

It is a view held across Zelenskyy’s camp and reflected broadly among Ukrainians. But it also increasingly comes up against the current of Western pressure, as Kyiv continues to face difficult front-line conditions against Moscow’s larger, better equipped army, as well as uncertainty over the level of future political support from Ukraine’s closest ally, the U.S.

War fatigue also appears to be eroding the morale of Ukrainians, who have struggled with constant bombardment, electricity outages and the loss of loved ones. A poll by the Kyiv International Institute for Sociology found that the number of Ukrainians opposed to territorial concessions to Russia in exchange for peace has continued to fall. It was 55% in July, compared with 74% in December.

Even Zelenskyy hinted at a willingness to negotiate with Russia for the first time since the 2022 full-scale invasion, suggesting Moscow should send a delegation to the next global peace summit, which is expected in November.

A lasting peace that works for Ukraine would ensure a steady erosion of Russian military might encompassed by the “three tools” often reiterated by Zelenskyy: increased military support, effective economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to isolate Russia.

As he spoke, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba was in China, one of Russia’s closest allies, on a mission to forge closer ties. Podolyak said the goal was to provide explanations for Ukraine’s positions and for why China should play a more “active intensive function in ending the war on the terms of international law.”

Few countries are watching the twists and turns of the U.S. presidential election more intently than Ukraine. But Zelenskyy is confident that his government has established good relations with both sides in the U.S, election, Podolyak said.

Source: AP News

________________________________________________________

Vehicles to be scrapped under Ulez head to Ukraine

A convoy of more than 50 vehicles, many of which were donated through London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) scrappage scheme, has set off to deliver aid to Ukraine.

The fleet, which also included a red London bus, left the Ukrainian Embassy in the capital on Thursday.  It is expected to take four days to reach Kharkiv in Ukraine's war-torn east.

The convoy has been loaded with supplies from aid groups based in Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Wiltshire. The Ulez scrappage scheme enables Londoners to claim up to £2,000 for scrapping non-compliant cars.

A partnership between Transport for London (TfL) and the British-Ukrainian Aid charity saw some of the scrapped vehicles donated to the humanitarian cause.

A London bus also joined the convoy, used to transport aid including food, clothing and stretchers.

Once in Kharkiv, the vehicles will all be distributed to local charities. The red bus will be donated to charity Peaceful Heaven of Kharkiv and used to evacuate civilians from hot spots in and around the city.

Source: BBC

________________________________________________________

Ukraine’s foreign minister seeking ‘common ground’ with China in talks on ending war with Russia

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has said he is seeking “common ground” in talks this week with his Chinese counterpart on ending his country’s war with Russia.

Kuleba met Wednesday with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Guangzhou, a major commercial and manufacturing center in southern China. It is the first visit to the country by a Ukrainian foreign minister since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has strained Ukraine’s relations with China.

China has close ties with Russia and has pushed for an end to the war that would take into account the interests of both sides. That position has put it at odds not only with Ukraine but also Western European countries and the United States, which are demanding a Russian withdrawal as the basis for any settlement.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talking about Kuleba’s meeting in an evening video statement, said “there is a clear signal that China supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty” and that “it was also confirmed ... that China will not supply weapons to Russia.”

A Chinese Foreign Ministry statement on the meeting quoted Wang saying that four principles previously outlined by Chinese President Xi Jinping provide important guidelines for resolving the crisis.

One of the principles says that “all countries deserve respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity” but another says that “the legitimate security concerns of any party should be taken seriously” — a reference to Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion.

China is not believed to be selling arms directly to Russia, but multiple reports say that so-called dual-use goods — which can have military or civilian uses — from China and other countries have wound up in Russian armaments.

Kuleba was expected to lobby Chinese officials to attend another peace conference planned for sometime before the American presidential election in early November. His visit reflects a calculation that any peace deal favorable to Ukraine would likely be a non-starter without China on board.

Chinese officials maintained that the two countries have friendly and cooperative relations. Noting the growth in trade between them, Wang said in his opening remarks that ties have continued to develop normally “despite complex and ever-changing international and regional situations.”

Source: AP News

________________________________________________________

Russian assets to be source for Ukraine loan

The US Treasury secretary said “things look good” for Group of Seven wealthy democracies to agree the terms of a $50bn loan to Ukraine backed by Russian assets by October. Janet Yellen told Reuters on the sidelines of a G20 finance leaders meeting in Brazil that talks to advance the loan were constructive, including over US demands for reassurances that the assets would stay frozen for a longer period of time. The $50bn loan, agreed in principle by G7 leaders in June, would be serviced with proceeds generated by about $300bn of Russian central bank assets frozen in the west after Moscow’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Source: The Guardian

 ________________________________________________________

Ukraine war an existential threat to the EU 

The EU’s most senior diplomat, Josep Borrell, warned that Russia’s war against Ukraine is an “existential threat” to Europe as he urged China to support the peace process to end the conflict during a meeting with the country’s foreign minister, Wang Yi.

China, a close ally of Moscow, has not publicly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Beijing has set out a 12-point paper setting out general principles for ending the war.

In comments made on the sidelines of the the association of southeast Asian nations in Laos, Borell also urged Beijing to halt the export of dual-use goods to Russia, which bolster its military capabilities.

In his statement, Borrell asked China to use its influence on Russia to contribute to end the war.  He He asked China to support the Ukraine peace process and considered that the joint statement with Brazil of May 2024 does not go in that direction.

Source: The Guardian

In Lviv, JRS and the Jesuit community created a safe space for women and children. JRS provides psychological support and a place to call home, while families either wait to go back or continue their journey. (courtesy of Sergi Camara, JRS)