4 - 5 May 2006 | Geneva | hosted by IFRC followed by: morning coffee Scoping study launch Isabelle...

4 - 5 May 2006 | Geneva | hosted by IFRC

followed by:

morning coffee

Scoping study launchIsabelle de Muyser-BoucherOCHA

Yasemin Aysanindependent consultant to OCHA

Antonella Vitaleconsultant to OCHA


Scoping study launch

this session is structured as follows:

a. introduction and launch and of scoping studyIsabelle de Muyser-Boucher, OCHA

b. content and conclusions of the scoping studyYasemin Aysan, independent OCHA consultant

c. feedback and Shelter after DisasterAntonella Vitale, consultants to OCHA


followed by:

content of the scoping study

a. introduction and launch of scoping studyIsabelle de Muyser-Boucher OCHA

09:00 – 9:30

09:30 – 09:45

09:45 – 10:15

10:15 – 11:15

11:15 – 11:30

11:30 – 12:15

12:15 – 13:00

13:00 – 14:00

14:00 – 14:45

14:45 – 15:30

15:30 – 15:45

15:45 – 16:30

16:30 – 17:15

17:15 – 17:45

17:45 – 18:30

18:30


Launch ofScoping study

Exploring key changes and developments in post-disaster settlement, shelter and housing, 1982 - 2006

Shelter Meeting, 04.05.2006


Why a scoping study?

• 1975: a major review of emergency shelter• provision is launched by UNDRO• 1982: "Shelter after Disaster – Guidelines for

Assistance" goes to print• 2003: Shelterproject.org discussions

→ Bibliographic reference (out of print)→ Case studies are outdated + update is required

• 2005: Revision process starts → Phase I (Nov. 2005 – March 2006): Desk

study of major changes and developments


What is the Scoping Study about?

Compares present context to that prevailing 24 years ago:

– Aim: to inform the forthcoming revision of "Shelter after Disaster – Guidelines for Assistance"

– Objective: an understanding of major changes occurred– Scope: from pre to post-disaster

all aspects of livelihoods all countries concerned a continuous process


Structure:

Introduction

The risk environment

Institutions and operations

New knowledge

Principles

Conclusions

Internet resources + Bibliography


Acknowledgements• Our team of consultants: Yasemin Aysan, Ian Davis, Tom

Corsellis and Antonella Vitale• All those who volunteered information and comments• DFID for having accepted to support the revision

Methodology:This Report is mostly based upon: • a Desk study carried out between Nov.2005 and Feb. 2006 by a group of four consultants to OCHA• responses to a semi-structured questionnaires received from 15 experts from various origins and horizons


The way forward(phase II of the revision):

• By November 2006: – Identification of framework of assessment for case studies – Start of case studies– Draft principles & strategy– Presentation of intermediate results to ShelterMeeting

• By May 2007:– Case studies completed – Implementation section drafted– Review of results by ShelterMeeting

• By November 2007:– Final draft submitted to ShelterMeeting

• By May 2008:– Printing of revised Guidelines by OCHA


Thank you

and

Good reading!


followed by:

conclusions of the scoping study and feedback

b. content of the scoping studyYasemin Aysanindependent consultant to OCHA


1. Hazard patterns have changed

• There has been an increase in climatic variability; climatic hazards, such as floods, sea level rise and droughts are increasing the vulnerability of populations;

• There have been a series of disasters with high-profile regional and cross-border impacts: (Hurricane Mitch,1998, Mozambique/ Southern Africa floods, 2000-1, Indian Ocean Tsunami, 2004)

b. Scoping study content

Risk environment


2. Exposure to hazards is growing

Due to macro-level vulnerabilities such as:

• population growth• urbanisation• concentration of population and assets eg.

In coastal areas, flood plains, mega cities• uneven economic development and poverty


Risk environment


2. Exposure to hazards is growing

Due to local-level vulnerabilities such as:

• lack of safe land resulting in unsafe housing on dangerous sites

• limited dissemination/understanding of risks• few options available to the poor to protect

themselves


Risk environment


3. More emphasis on Disaster Risk Management but limited implementation

• Improved Risk Assessment methodologies• International frameworks for Risk Reduction• Institutional and legal Systems for DRM• International Cooperation and Partnerships on

Early Warning Systems (EWS)• Risk Reduction through byelaws and land-use

planning controls and their enforcement• Risk Reduction through knowledge of safer

construction available since the 80s.


Risk environment


4. There has not been a coherent post disaster shelter and housing policy, or until now a regular sector review

Influenced by general housing policies:• Late 80s-early 90s enabling framework

approach -participation, decentralisation, housing finance and capacity building (IYSH, 1987; Global Shelter Strategy for 2000, 1888; Habitat II, 1996)

• Since mid-90s sustainable development app.-housing as an economic and social asset, emphasis on environment (Rio Conference, 1992; Millenium Development Goals, 2000)


Policy environment


Influenced by human rights and housing rights agenda:

• Right to adequate housing –security of tenure, elimination of discrimination in housing sector, eradication of forced eviction (Habitat II, 1996; Human Settlements and Human Rights Commissions, 2001)

leading to rights-based approach in post disaster housing.


Policy environment


5. Policy shifts in post-disaster housing and settlement have occured, influenced by the DRM, sustainable development, human rights and housing policies.

• Local capacity and vulnerability are better understood; urban disasters pose a greater challenge –needs and coping, renters and marginalised, land value and availability

• Reconstruction is identified as an opportunity for future risk reduction yet not systematically used


Policy shifts in post disaster housing


• There is a much broader and more holistic view of what contitutes the sector –economic and social benefits and livelihood linkages

• Linkages between safety and availability of land, land tenure and success in reconstruction and recovery are recognised

• Settlement approach -social, physical and economic infrastructure and not just family shelter is widely accepted


Policy shifts in post- disaster housing


• Emphasis on beneficiaries having more responsibility in decisions and process but implementation remains weak

• The need to shift from product delivery to enabling organisations is recognised

• Housing as a process and the relationship between relief, recovery, reconstruction (and development) is recognised but rarely integrated into programming and coordinated

• Decentralisation to local level is desirable but not always possible


Policy shifts in post- disaster housing


6. In contrast to other sectors, shelter and housing remain weak in assessment, planning and coordination, both internally and in linking with other sectors

Few international tools and mechanism are:

for coordination• UN emergency appeals and CAPs

• Humanitarian Response Review, 2005

• IASC and the Cluster Working Groups on Shelter, Camp Management, Early Recovery


Strategic planning and coordination


For assessment, monitoring and evaluation

• SPHERE standards, 1997

• ALNAP (Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action), 1997

• DEC (Disaster Emergency Committee), 1998

• SAME (Shelter Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation for transitional shelter),2005

• PROVENTION Consortium and the World Bank (learning papers on reconstruction and recovery), 2000

(long-term impact ass. and longitudinal studies still limited)


Assessment, monitoring and evaluation


For international exchange of knowledge:

Settlements and Disasters Delft, The Netherlands 1988 Reconstruction after Urban Earthquakes: An International Agenda to

Achieve Safer Settlements in 1990’s Buffalo, USA 1989Disasters and the Small Dwelling Oxford, UK 1991First International Workshop on Improved Shelter Response and

Environment for Refugees Geneva, Switzerland, 1993World Conferences on Disaster Reduction Yokohama, Japan 1994

and Kobe, Japan 2005First Emergency Settlement Conference Madison, USA 1996United Nations Conference on Human Settlements - Habitat II

Istanbul, Turkey 1996International Conferences – Post-disaster reconstruction (I-Rec)Coventry, UK 2002 & 2004Peer reviews various locations between 2002 – 2004Shelter Meeting held biannually in Geneva, Switzerland 2004 –

ongoing


Exchange of knowledge


7. Good governance and enabling shelter strategies of the 90s called for participation of communities, civil society, local authorities, private sector leading to the proliferation of actors

• The 1982 Guidelines tended to emphasize community and individual self-reliance and did not sufficiently address role of other actors

• Number and range of actors involved in post disaster shelter and housing has proliferated in the last two decades

• Strong national (Iran, Turkey) and local Governments (India) continue to play a key role in policy and delivery


Roles and capacities


• Capacities largely remained unsupported in weak administrations (Mitch countries) resulting in more prominent role for local NGOs and the international community

• In the 90s NGO attention shifted to refugees and conflict. Recent large scale disasters ( Mitch, Gujarat, Turkey, Tsunami, Pakistan) changed the trend

• Increased overlap of conflict and natural disasters resulted in mixed mandate responses (flow of funds determined)




• UN agencies have been responding to shelter and housing based on flow of funds, and not always on mandates, capacities or proven expertise

• IFIs are increasingly becoming the key actors in reconstruction where housing is a major part

• Private sector, small builders play a sinificant role

• Quantitative and qualitative gaps in human resources and expertise remain.




8. Choices for post- disaster shelter and housing have been recognised and more diverse approaches have been supported since the 1982 Guidelines

• Prefabricated solution dominated 80s discussion; however pressures remain

• Host families• Cash for owner built• Cash and vouchers for materials• Insurance for risk transfer



It should be recognised that shelter and housing ( as well as recovery) is not a linear process and that the various choices have to be supported in parallel.

A practical coordination mechanism to develop and implement a single sector strategy for coherence is required.


please fell free to use the side bar


followed by:

morning coffee

c. feedback and Shelter after DisasterAntonella Vitaleconsultant to OCHA


how should these conclusions inform the revision of ‘Shelter after Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance’? 1. hazard patterns have changed 2. exposure to hazards is growing3. there is more emphasis on Disaster Risk Management, but

limited implementation4. there has not been a coherent post-disaster shelter and

housing policy or, until now, a regular sector review 5. post disaster housing and settlement approaches influenced

by DRM, sustainable development, rights and housing policies6. compared to other sectors, shelter and housing remain weak

in assessment, planning and coordination, both internally and in linking with the other sectors

7. good governance and enabling shelter strategies of the ’90s called for the participation of communities, civil society, local authorities, private sector, and the proliferation of actors

8. choices for post disaster shelter and housing have been recognised and more diverse approaches have been supported than recognised by the 1982 guidelines

c. feedback conclusions

the scoping study was intended to inform the guidelines revision:

what have we learnt?


c. feedback conclusions

online blog

new for 2006!

quick and easy access from sheltercentre.org

immediate posting

the scoping study should inform the guidelines revision

feedback through:

1. working group blog, password protected

2. public access blog, no password


the study will inform the revision by Shelter Centre with OCHA of ‘Shelter after Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance’

over Summer 2006, Shelter Centre will identify partners to undertake case studies for the revision, referring to specific:

1. major responses, including different phases of response and approaches to response

2. types of hazard and disaster

3. regions and country income levels

4. topics of focus, such as land rights

preliminary results of case studies will be presented at SM06b, with a collated draft report presented at SM07a

c. Shelter after Disaster phase 2

please propose partner organisations and case studies



feedback sheets

name and contact details

express your level of interest

comments or suggestions?

please leave the sheets for us to collect!

in yourfolders

also feedback at:



the study will inform the revision with OCHA of ‘Shelter after Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance’

over Summer 2006, Shelter Centre will identify partners to undertake case studies for the revision, referring to specific:

1. major responses, including different phases of response and approaches to response

2. types of hazard and disaster

3. regions and country income levels

4. topics of focus, such as land rights

preliminary results of case studies will be presented at SM06b, with a collated draft report presented at SM07a


please propose partner organisations and case studies


4 - 5 May 2006 | Geneva | hosted by IFRC followed by: morning coffee Scoping study launch Isabelle...

Documents

Transcript of 4 - 5 May 2006 | Geneva | hosted by IFRC followed by: morning coffee Scoping study launch Isabelle...