Mr Charles Parrack

For this edition of Shelter Projects, the 24 case studies dealing with the operational implementation of programs (not the overviews) were analyzed by subject experts. For each case study, the strengths and weaknesses highlighted in the case study were taken as the unit of analysis. Each strength and weakness was assigned up to two themes at the intervention/output level and up to two themes at the outcome level.

The term “self-recovery” is used in the humanitarian shelter and settlements sector to mean the process whereby disaster-affected households repair, build, or rebuild their homes using their own resources supplemented with assistance from humanitarian organizations. What is important about the process is that households are able to make their own choices and decisions about the reconstruction process . It is an assisted self-help process, where organizations help people to help themselves, consistent with the concept suggested by Flinn et al.

Out of all humanitarian crises, the five countries with the highest reported needs for shelter
and non-food item assistance in 2018 were Yemen, Syria, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Nigeria, and Sudan (InterAction, 2020). These shelter and settlements crises are all in conflict
situations. The recovery or establishment of shelter and settlements generates sensitive
political issues during conflict. Whatever shelter strategies are implemented by operational
agencies will have significant impacts, which can include fuelling conflict and contributing to
peacebuilding (InterAction, 2020; Anderson, 1999).

Where root causes of conflict are linked to control of resources, such as land (van Leeuwen
& van der Haar, 2016), interventions related to access and use of land will be influenced by
the conflict. They will affect decisions about where shelter and settlements can be located for
displaced communities, as well as having an impact on possible durable solutions, defined by
UNHCR as repatriation, local integration, and resettlement (UNHCR, 2017c). Displacement
can be as much a tool for aggressors in conflict as a coping strategy for affected populations;
parties in conflict are often part of the negotiation when humanitarian actors are supporting
displaced populations to settle (Lischer, 2007). Parties can impose restrictions on access to
land, rights to settle, and freedom of movement. They can also restrict the use of building
materials or building techniques. These restrictions may reduce shelter opportunities and
sometimes limit assistance to provision of temporary shelters and non-food items (Global
Shelter Cluster, 2013).

Timeframe is another essential element to consider. In conflict, the traditional division
between relief, recovery, and development does not work. The humanitarian and emergency
phase may last for a long time with lapses and relapses of violence and insecurity forcing
multiple displacements of affected populations. The displaced population is often stuck in a
temporary situation for years (Moore, 2017), with no durable solution, but this interim state
of existence does not stop the desire for better housing and other social and communitybuilding
activities that are more associated with development outcomes (Brun, 2016).

This research aims to explore the role of shelter and settlements programmes in conflict
reduction and peacebuilding. It aims to demonstrate that support to shelter and settlement
interventions in conflict and displacement contexts can contribute to wider multisector
humanitarian outcomes, such as protection and social cohesion.

Shelter is still too often equated with a physical structure – ranging from an emergency tent to a prefab structure to a basic living space provided within Sphere standards. At the same time, there are spirited discussions and many attempts to expand the understanding and scope of the shelter sector.

The zealots amongst us may propose to entirely do away with ‘shelter’ and replace it with ‘home’: a concept that goes beyond its tangible dimensions to evoke more elusive aspects such as a place where a family nurtures and cares for its loved ones, where people belong, feel safe, cook and share meals, converse, study, produce and where memories are stored and future plans are created.

We suggest considering a shelter–home spectrum to maintain relevant as a sector. Programming may lean across this spectrum depending on context. The role of the shelter actor may thus vary from direct delivery of emergency shelter to an enabler of ‘home-making’

Following the destruction of most of the housing stock in Lisbon by an earthquake and related tsunami and fire, a complete re-design and reconstruction of the city was undertaken. The new city was designed to include large public spaces, modern infrastructure, and new, anti-seismic building designs.

The Building and Construction Improvement Programme (BACIP) has been working with the high mountain communities of the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan since 1997. Alongside its contribution to the general built environment and housing improvement of the area, the programme is engaged in the development and promotion of solutions for making the buildings seismically resistant. Gilgit-Baltistan falls in a high seismic zone and the earthquake of 2005 caused the death of nearly 90,000 people in the neighbouring state of Azad Kashmir and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, which share long borders with Gilgit-Baltistan. BACIP believes that investment in making communities safer will minimize the chance of loss of life and assets and reduce the cost of reconstruction. BACIP works with local communities in a participatory manner to improve the local housing by improving safety and comfort without changing the local culture and way of living. For the sustainability of its approach, it has made efforts to make its solutions part of the local market so that entrepreneurs and artisans are available to manufacture, sell or construct these solutions. A number of profitable enterprises have been established. Alongside hands-on training and demonstration, BACIP uses media such as radio for the promotion of its solutions and awareness of communities. In December 2013 with the support of the Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF), BACIP revisited a number of houses that were constructed using seismic-resistant technologies and it was found that the solutions applied to these houses had greatly contributed to the safety and comfort of the users. 100 per cent of the houses were in use and were occupied by the original owners.

Our research into the long-term impact of reconstruction provided new learning, leading to some suggestions for future changes to reconstruction and recovery and our ways of working. We were also able to identify gaps where we need to broaden our understanding, perhaps through future research. However, it is worth noting again that our review of case studies was based on qualitative information only. Numbers interviewed in each case were relatively small, and, therefore, did not produce statistically viable quantitative evidence. As far as possible, we verified individually obtained information through triangulation. We also compared our findings with those of two parallel research efforts with a similar focus. That said we are aware that these case studies are looking back at reconstruction over a very variable timespan, ranging between 4 and 35 years, making comparison of long-term impact difficult even between them. Moreover, they took place in widely differing contexts, and every new crisis is bound to be different again. The positive lessons that have come out of this research will, therefore, always need to be adapted to new disaster situations. Bearing in mind these restrictions, we can see some of the findings from the literature reviewed in Chapter 1 confirmed in our case studies. Other literature findings are harder to verify, partly because our sample of cases may not have covered them sufficiently, but also because these findings may have been evident in the short-term impact and changed in the longer term, a phenomenon confirmed in the research by Duyne Barenstein in Chapter 3.

Of all the numeric indicators commonly used as

guidelines in humanitarian shelter response, it is the

indicator for covered shelter space that is perhaps the

most often quoted – three and a half square metres

per person. However, a lack of awareness of where

this and other indicators came from has played a part

in limiting discussion on the appropriate use of this

indicator across all forms of shelter and reconstruction

response.

Identifying the problem

The shelter and settlements sector has long recognised the broad impacts adequate shelter can have on people’s lives, health, livelihoods, safety and well-being, indeed on affected populations’ recovery from disasters and crises. However, while within the sector this is now broadly acknowledged, there remains a need to advocate for this across humanitarian sectors and to a wider variety of external actors. To what extent are we able to demonstrate that the provision of adequate shelter assistance has a positive impact on these essential aspects of recovery? How might better evidence of the impacts of shelter and settlement assistance lead to improved humanitarian programming?

How the learning event explored this topic

In May 2023, the Global Shelter Cluster’s Recovery Community of Practice held an online Learning Event bringing together evaluation specialists with shelter practitioners to explore the WHY, WHAT, HOW, WHO and WHEN of understanding and measuring the impacts of shelter assistance. The event invited a series of presentations by experts and practitioners to discuss what the challenges and possibilities are around improving the use and understanding of evaluating impact in the shelter and settlements sector, and how evidence could subsequently be used. This event explored what evidence is needed and for what purpose, as well as how it is utilised and who should be involved, and if this could strengthen the implementation of shelter support to populations in need. This report draws on the presentations made during the Learning Event itself, the contributions from event participants, as well as additional contributions and interviews.

Content and conclusions - What will the reader take from this report?

A number of themes and crucial issues emerged from the learning event and this report. These are:

● The importance of coordination both within the shelter and settlements sector and across other sectors in order to share and use information more effectively.

● The need to develop partnerships between shelter practitioners, evaluators, donors and other actors in order to better understand the wider impacts of shelter programming. In turn, to use these partnerships to advocate for more resource allocation for evidence gathering.

● The importance of engaging affected communities in the evaluation process, to not only consult communities but to try and support them to lead and influence the process of evidence gathering directly.

● The need for further research, particularly in the area of evaluating impact in conflict settings. Furthermore, to explore whether it is appropriate for the sector to create standardised sector wide indicators for measuring impact in a more cohesive way across organisations.

● The need for greater support for shelter and settlements project teams. In particular, to provide MEAL teams and programmatic staff with the time and opportunity to think about evaluation early on and throughout project cycles.

Despite calls under the Grand Bargain in 2016 to advance reform of the humanitarian system – work toward bridging the humanitarian-development nexus has been slow to realise. The aim of this research was to contribute to identifying the barriers faced by humanitarian practitioners and the households they support to the longer-term recovery of shelter and settlements in humanitarian crises. We sought to ask: Which barriers prevent longer-term support to those who have lost their shelter and settlements? Specifically, the key question of concern was which barriers exist to moving from a short term, temporary, emergency approach to more sustainable, longer-term assistance for those who have lost their shelter and settlements. We first synthesise the existing state of knowledge on (1) how recovery after disaster and conflict has been  conceptualised and defined; (2) the impact of humanitarian shelter and settlements approaches on recovery and; (3) what the barriers are that humanitarian agencies need to be overcome to better connect emergency relief to longer term recovery. Drawing on interviews with a diverse pool of Shelter Cluster Coordinators across multiple national contexts, we sought to capture perspectives of practitioners who have extensive experience working across natural hazard and conflict settings. Using qualitative analysis, we identify recurrent barriers mentioned by practitioners and opportunities to fill gaps in support of longer-term recovery. This is one of the first studies to capture humanitarian shelter practitioner insights on the barriers that exist to long-term recovery of communities. While other studies have looked at this question from the perspective of communities and other humanitarian sectors, there has been little effort to systematically capture shelter and settlement perspectives from those implementing humanitarian programming. This has the potential to improve the quality of assistance to communities. This builds upon earlier scoping work that identifies the link between relief and recovery as a research priority for the humanitarian shelter and settlements sector by the Global Shelter Cluster and scholars. It further connects to a growing body of work to build stronger evidence under an evolving research agenda for humanitarian shelter and settlements.