Shelter Meeting 14 Breakout Technical Sector Priorities
Group 1 Settlement and Urban Infrastructure
Shelter Meetings
The Shelter Meeting is a global biannual conference for the humanitarian shelter sector, with
participation in-person and online from around the world from governments, donors, IASC
clusters, UN bodies, IOs, the Red Cross Movement, NGOs, independent humanitarian shelter
specialists and academic research bodies.
Objectives of the Shelter Meeting include; engaging and supporting all stakeholders in the global
shelter sector; linking all coordination that is supporting the shelter sector including IASC clusters;
engage, linking and supporting other events and initiatives in the shelter sector; engaging in,
linking and supporting the events and initiatives of other humanitarian sectors and cross-cutting
issues; supporting consensus on policy, standards, specifications & operating procedures;
sharing programmatic and technical good practice on on-going field operations; sharing
information on project activities valuable for the global shelter sector; agreeing on and prioritising
further project activities valuable for the global shelter sector; forming external working groups to
support project activities; and reviewing project activities.
Shelter Meeting 14, 10th October 2014
On 10th of October 2014, the Shelter Meeting welcomed participation in-person and online from
over 25 countries by representatives from 44 different agencies. Hosted by the IASC Global
Shelter Cluster, the meeting breakout groups covered the areas of 'Response Options' and
'Technical Sector Priorities'.
Presentations from Shelter Meeting can be viewed here.
As a part of each Shelter Meeting, breakout groups are convened; these are meant to begin a
greater exploration of the topics relevant and important to current Shelter sector concerns. In
Shelter Meeting 14 the breakout session for Technical Sector Priorities was meant to examine
technical priorities within the shelter sector to come to a better understanding of those priorities
and ways forward.
Next steps
The conclusions of these breakout groups, including suggestions, will be first circulated in draft to
the session chairpersons and team members for their comments. The final notes will inform
broader and more formal discussions of these topics within the shelter sector, including through:
comments made to the notes posted online on the Shelter Meeting 14 webpage; subsequent
Shelter Meetings; related fora, such as the UK Shelter Forum; technical and innovation working
group meetings of the IASC global shelter cluster and other IASC global clusters, such as the
CCCM, Early Recovery and WASH clusters; as well as other national, regional and global fora,
research and academic agencies.
1
Notes summarising breakout group 1 ‘Settlement and Urban Infrastructure’
Group Facilitator: LeGrand L. Malany, USAID OFDA
Rapporteur: Kenneth Macfayden, IMPACT Initiatives
Notes editor: Amanda Wigfall, Shelter Meeting Coordinator, Shelter Centre
This group discussed the role of emergency shelter and its relation to urban infrastructure, along
with urban settlements and focus on the preparedness phase. These notes, along with the notes
from the other groups in the breakout sessions from Shelter Meeting 14, will be taken forward
through various fora, including the Technical and Innovation Working Group (TiWG) of the IASC
Global Shelter Cluster.
3.1
Role of emergency shelter in recovery
3.1.1
The group discussed that the real priority for additional attention with shelter is not in the
initial relief stage, but in the recovery stage and having a clear picture of the recovery
stage is important in the relief stage.
It was agreed that there is a difference between conflict and non-conflict activities. Issues
discussed in non-conflict apply to conflict but conflict situations are harder to implement.
3.1.2
3.2
3.2.1
Identified key elements of the emergency shelter response.
The group identified the following key aspects of the emergency shelter response.

Rubble and debris management.

Critical infrastructure, such as clinics, schools and water distribution networks.

Housing and settlement.

Livelihoods, critical in the urban context.

Land is not as critical as it may first appear.
3.2.2 The group discussed how geographic surveying has an impact on recovery, as a
precursor to longer term urban planning.
3.2.3 The role of emergency shelter should be to initiate and assist self-help schemes.
3.2.7 Regardless of mandate or ‘phase’, life for affected population continues day by day, not
in phases.
3.2.8 the idea was deliberated that there is a difference between the mind-set of the sector and
the mind-set of affected population. Phases are an NGO structure not necessarily a
beneficiary concern.
3.2.9 It was commented that generally, recovery programmes are playing catch up with the
affected populations self help efforts.
3.2.10 Multidisciplinary teams are needed, such as architects, lawyers and advocates, in
emergency response.
3.2.11 Humanitarian shelter actors need access to specialised skillsets from the onset of an
emergency.
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
Identified key problems transitioning between relief and recovery phases
The group discussed how understanding of ownership / tenure and land mapping need to
be considered from day one, along with an understanding of regulations and legal
framework.
The point of view of emergency shelter regardless of cluster system is needed and on the
ground reality and its relationship with the recovery phase.
The group considered that role of international and national humanitarian actors as
enablers, facilitating instead of building owner driven / owner built shelters.
2
3.3.4
Further strategic and technical consideration is required of governments imposing ‘no
build zones’ following some forms of disaster. Such policies sometimes make things
difficult for the affected population, who have already been living previously with existing
formal and informal HLP methods for negotiating tenure.
3.4
3.4.1
Main points discussed by the group around land tenure in the emergency phase
It was observed by the group that there is a potential conflict between the lifesaving and
developmental priorities and mandates of actors in different phases, for example between
humanitarian mandates and Build Back Safer.
There is importance behind facilitating self-recovery by performing building surveys early
on in the response which, in result, lead to self-help and may pre-empt potential
challenges in the emergency and development phases.
The emergency phase needs to be setting the stage for the development phase.
It was discussed that first responders tend lack technical capacity to understand future
development phase. To be impactful, the initial recovery phase should have a
multidisciplinary understanding of likely future national recovery scenarios, actors and
mechanisms.
There was recognition within the group that different phases have different actors with
different donors and mandates. All stages and actors need to improve interaction,
especially in order to achieve integrated programming.
Land tenure in urban centres, often in multi-story buildings, is sometimes not a land rights
issue but eviction issue: self-settled or renting IDPs are vulnerable to eviction by
landlords.
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.5.6
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.7
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.7.3
Discussion on focusing on the preparedness phase
The group examined how preparedness /emergency / recovery are linked, as “three sides
of the same coin”.
The rubble management plan should not be written at the onset of disaster, but needs to
be drawn up in the preparedness phase.
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) plans are key, such as in Aleppo: even though access
may not be possible for a period, such as when a conflict is ongoing, there is often plenty
of time for planning for when there is access.
DRR activities should be driven by disaster response needs and not by what people think
should be done.
The need to break cycle of inefficiency was identified and commented upon within the
group.
The lack of funding allocated for DRR was discussed.
Focus on urban settlements
Cash transfer programmes were identified as a priority in and for urban areas.
The question was posed within the group of whether attention should be given to
developing mechanisms to identify available space needed in urban areas, when
responding to disasters.
Part of the discussion was on affected populations needing to be able decide for
themselves where to live, and resolve their land tenure issues themselves, such as in
Haiti with community housing.
It was noted that informal and formal structures exist already, along with cultural, religious
and communal physical infrastructure.
Potential problems identified by the group
The group agreed that further attention is needed to responding to multi-story shelter
challenges, including case studies and guidance.
Corruption was identified as an issue in all phases of response.
It was noted that urban settlements may have specific challenges, such as UXOs and
sanitation.
3
3.7.4
WASH was identified as a key challenge of urban shelter humanitarian response.
3.8
3.8.1
3.8.2
Suggestions by the group
Integrated planning is needed during emergency phase with recovery in mind.
Affected populations need to be empowered to be able to use self-recovery as much as
possible.
Humanitarian shelter needs to have access to multi-disciplinary skill sets.
Build social, cultural, economic and physical infrastructure, beginning in the emergency
phase.
3.8.3
3.8.4
4