INTRODUCTION & RATIONALE
An objective of the Global Shelter Cluster WG on Settlement Based approaches in Urban Areas is to contribute to building a body of knowledge to promote and improve the application of settlement based approaches in humanitarian response.
This initial collection of case studies represents one vehicle the WG is using to further the discussion on settlement based approaches.
Following a recent call-out to various urban fora and communities of practice, this compendium includes a total of 11 draft case studies, with several more in development. The following case studies focus on unpacking the specific settlement approach undertaken by the implementing agency, highlighting achievements, challenges and lessons experienced. Case studies include initiatives focused on the built environment, support to governance, social engagement, cohesion or other thematic focus areas.
Over the coming 6-months, additional case studies will be collected, complemented by further analysis. Regional events may also be scheduled to provide further forums for discussion and knowledge exchange.
Agencies interested in submitting case studies, please contact james.schell@impact-initiatives.org.
INTERIM CASE STUDY OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Reviewing the attached case studies, specific achievements, challenges and lessons reoccurred in several case studies, as summarized below. This initial analysis will be further expanded on in the coming months through further literature reviews and case study submissions.
COMMON KEY ACHIEVEMENTS
Understanding the community: Initiatives resulted in a more in-depth understanding of the community. High levels of community engagement, supported through the use of maps, spatial data and participatory mapping exercises were important vehicles in achieving a nuanced understanding of the community/settlement.
Engagement with multiple actors: Numerous case studies prioritised engaging with multiple and diverse actors, including: local, national and international stakeholders; humanitarian and development actors; and government, civil society and private sector actors.
Information sharing & a common point of reference: Settlement based initiatives often also provided a platform for information sharing, dialogue and coordination – either through a physical centre or virtual platform. Providing such fora was valued and – depending on the specific nature (physical, virtual etc) contributed to social cohesion, information management and relationship building.
High levels of community engagement: Successful settlement-based projects by nature require a strong level of community engagement at all stages. Case studies reiterated this importance of engaging with all community member constituencies, and supporting (or creating) community level committees/structures to support the project and potentially contribute to other community processes.
Considering the humanitarian development nexus: A settlement based approach proved useful when addressing both humanitarian and development concerns. Identifying short, medium- and long-term priorities in a defined geographic community often acted as an important catalyst to ensure initiatives remain complementary and both humanitarian and development actors were involved in planning processes.
Capacity strengthening of local actors: Several case studies prioritized direct engagement with and capacity strengthening of local municipal authorities. Engagement with authorities was considered vital to ensure projects: remain participatory and inclusive; increase legitimacy and local support; and contribute to more macro-level government priorities (urban planning and zoning, infrastructure development etc).
COMMON CHALLENGES & SHORTCOMINGS
Engaging with multiple actors: Although case studies prioritize the importance of multiple actors, effectively navigating numerous and diverse actors brought significant challenges in terms of resource investment, ensuring a thorough understanding of the environment, and often fluid relationships with actors to manage.
Limited capacity of local actors: Settlement based projects inherently involved strong engagement with local counterparts and partners. However, numerous case studies highlighted the challenges of working with local actors with current limited capacity, questioning the longevity and sustainability of potential initiatives, and significant investment required to ensure strong partnerships.
Relationship and impact on nearby settlements and the city level: Challenges and tensions can arise when balancing the needs and priorities of affected populations within the specific settlement, in relation to neighboring settlements and overall city level planning. Engaging with municipal authorities in this regards is considered vital, but is not without these associated tensions.
Who represents the settlement? Urban communities are more diverse than rural communities, placing significant importance on ensuring a diversity in representation.
Urban risk and volatility: Whilst not exclusive to urban contexts, risks and impact of urban instability and violence can be compounded in urban environments with poor socio-economic indicators and diverse population groups. Such tensions impacted a number of case studies.
Complex Housing, Land and Property contexts: Settlement based programming including a Housing, Land and Property (HLP) focus was relatively common. However, in numerous case studies, proof of ownership was non-existent (for various reasons) in urban contexts. Close collaboration with numerous actors on sensitive HLP issues required significant time-investment and could become a source of tension.
Multiple coordination platforms: Several case studies highlighted challenges associated with engaging with numerous coordination mechanisms, i.e. national and international coordination mechanisms operating during a humanitarian response, with mechanisms often structured sectorally, as opposed to geographically, which can bring confusion to coordination efforts.
COMMON LESSONS LEARNT
Proactive engagement with different levels of government: Acknowledging the challenges of balancing priorities at settlement/neighbourhood, city and national humanitarian and development priorities, a number of case studies reiterated the importance of engaging with numerous levels of governments to ensure response and recovery plans complement wider initiatives and address both humanitarian and development priorities.
Prioritise partnerships and engagement with diverse (and especially local) actors: Despite the challenges and significant resource investment required for strong engagement, investing in community participation and capacity strengthening is key and generate sustained ownership, recognition and leadership. Peer to Peer support model for Municipality capacity building as an efficient way of increasing acceptance of support from local municipality stakeholders
Be realistic about coverage: Projects following a settlement based approach can have a catchment area incorporating hundreds of thousands of people. Agencies need to be realistic about what can be undertaken in large catchment areas and promote strong coordination and partnerships wherever possible.
Anticipate a fluid urban context: A strong focus on planning and actor mapping is vital, as is the need to remain flexible in an often fluid urban environment.
Invest in information management capacity: Several case studies stressed the importance of investing in strong IM capacity to ensure effective monitoring of settlement based programming, especially when undertaken by multiple actors.
Integrated programming, with a focus on livelihoods, HLP: Numerous case studies reiterated the need for urban, area based initiatives to proactive address HLP rights and strengthen livelihoods where ever possible.
Advocate for donors to support settlement based approaches: Having donors that support settlement-based approaches is critical to further improve and upscale the approach
Close coordination between agencies is essential: For many settlement based projects to succeed, organizations must work in different sectors simultaneously. Where common road, sewer, or water infrastructure exists, coordination between implementing agencies and governments becomes essential. Further, sector-level or cluster-level coordination mechanisms should be complemented by area-based coordination.