This website is a repository for over 250 case studies and overviews of post-disaster and post-conflict shelter projects, plus 13 opinion pieces, all originally published in the "Shelter Projects" series of seven books. Scroll down to use the searchable table of documents to find the article you need!
This website also contains pdf versions of two books of technical shelter designs. These examples are included in the table below.
The Shelter Projects series is an initiative led by the Global Shelter Cluster. The case studies are the work of many implementing organisations.
See the About page for the latest news in the twitter feed or follow @sheltercases on TwitterFollow @sheltercases
Find a case study - Table and Map
Use the map to select a country which will filter the table below. Alternatively, use the table filters.
The boundaries on this map do not imply official endorsement nor acceptance.
The table below can be filtered by country, date range or article/emergency type. Use the "search" box to carry out a free-text search. Clicking a country on the map will filter the table - if the country has no documents no results will be returned. Clear the filters by clicking on the "CLEAR FILTERS" button.
Note that some case studies are grouped together into one pdf when they relate to the same emergency.
Click the green expansion buttons to see extra information. Clicking on a Title will open a pdf of the article.
|Afghanistan, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.01)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter was built to act as a shell to protect occupants living in tents. Each shelter contains one tent, erected inside the structure. It is rectangular in plan and has 1.8m tall side walls and a gable roof. The covered floor area is approximately 9m x 4.3m. The frames are constructed from bamboo poles. The frames are connected using plywood gusset plates and bolts. The walls and roof are plastic sheeting, and are supported on the bamboo frame and purlins. The floor is compacted soil. The shelter frames were shop fabricated in the camp and transported to the construction site. The frames are embedded into the ground for support.
|Afghanistan||2009||Conflict||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.1|
|Burkina Faso, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.02)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter is a rectangular timber frame with a pitched roof and a covered floor area of 2.7m x 1.8m. The frame has plastic sheeting for both roof and wall covering, and one door on each short side. The wall frame is made from timber panels that are pre-fabricated on the ground. The timber roof structure is nailed to these panels. Both walls and roof are reinforced with wire cross bracing. There is a knee braced timber framed along the roof ridge which supports the roof panels, and provides stability during construction. Wall and roof covering is fastened to the timbers using flat-head nails.
|Burkina Faso||2009||Conflict||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.2|
|Haiti, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.03)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter is a rectangular timber framed structure with a gable roof and a covered floor area of approximately 21 square meters. Wall consists of wood studs with plywood sheathing, and the roof consists of metal roofing on wood purlins and trusses. The trusses are supported on wood posts within in the perimeter walls.
The wood trusses can be pre-manufactured and shipped to the construction site. The foundation consists of concrete piers in the four corners and a stone masonry wall in-between the piers. The floor is a cast-in-place concrete slab. As designed, the shelter has only one door and one window.
|Haiti||2010||Natural Disaster||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.3|
|Haiti, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.04)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter is a rectangular timber framed structure with a gable roof and a covered floor area of approximately 3.6m x 4.9m with a covered porch measuring approximately 3.6m x 1.8m in front. The floor is constructed with wood joists, and the walls are constructed with wood studs. Both are supported by built-up timber posts. The roof is framed with wood trusses that can be pre-manufactured and shipped to the site.
The roof extends over the porch to provide cover. Floors and walls are covered with plywood, and the roof is covered with metal panels. The bottom of the built-up timber posts are encased in concrete and embedded in the ground. The design includes one door in the front and back walls, and louvred wall openings.
|Haiti||2010||Natural Disaster||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.4|
|Haiti, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.05)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter is a rectangular timber framed structure with a gable roof and a covered floor area of approximately
5.4m x 3.7m with a covered porch measuring approximately 1.8m x 3.7m. The roof has wood and corrugated bituminous roofing supported on timber purlins and trusses. The exterior walls are wood framed, and the wall infill is constructed using a traditional technique called clissage, which consists of thin slats of wood woven between the wall framing. The foundation consists of wood posts embedded in concrete piers, and the floor is an elevated concrete slab supported by a short masonry wall between the wood posts. As designed, the shelter has one door and two windows. The shelters were designed to be accessible by persons with reduced mobility and individual modifications were made according to personal needs.
|Haiti||2010||Natural Disaster||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.5|
|Philippines, 2012, Cyclone||2012||Cyclone||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.06)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter is a rectangular structure with a single pitch roof and a covered floor area of approximately 4.8m x 3.7m. The shelter is supported on concrete piers and footings such that the first floor is raised approximately 750mm above grade. The floor and roof are framed with coconut wood beams and joists. The floor is plywood and the roof is corrugated metal roofing. The exterior walls consist of amakan (woven panels of bamboo or palm leaves) fastened to the coconut wood frame. The light weight wood frame can be lifted off the concrete piers and moved to a different location by a small number of people. As designed, the shelter has one door and two windows.
|Philippines||2012||Natural Disaster||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.6|
|Philippines, 2012, Cyclone||2012||Cyclone||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.07)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter is a rectangular structure with a gable roof and a covered floor area of approximately 4.0m x 5.0m with a covered bathroom and vestibule of approximately 4.0m x 1.5m. The exterior walls have a half height concrete masonry wall with wood framing on top up to the eaves. The roof consists of timber trusses and purlins supporting corrugated metal roofing. The roof framing is supported by eight precast concrete columns located within the exterior walls. The concrete columns and masonry walls are embedded in the ground, and the plans do not specifically call for footings. The floor is a cast in place concrete slab, and the bathroom has a below grade septic tank. The modular construction for the shelter allows for expansion in both horizontal directions with only minor modifications to the core shelter. It is also possible to deconstruct the shelter for relocation and/or to be included in permanent construction. As designed, the shelter has two doors and two windows.
|Philippines||2012||Natural Disaster||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.7|
|Bangladesh, 2008, Cyclone||2008||Cyclone||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.08)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter is has reinforced concrete columns, a steel framed hip roof with metal roofing and bamboo mat walls. The total covered area is approximately 4.5m x 3.2m, and there is one door and three windows. The floor is raised above existing grade, and a short brick wall is provided around the perimeter to resist flood waters and windblown rain. The 8 concrete columns are embedded approximately 1.5m into the ground. The roof truss is constructed with steel angles and is anchored to the concrete columns. The foundation consists of the 8 embedded columns, and a perimeter concrete grade beam. There are wooden beams between the columns approximately 2.1m above the first floor, which allow the addition of a mezzanine level to the shelter.
The shelter is designed to be easily moved by unbolting the columns and roof frame with hand tools and the materials can be re-used as a part of permanent housing reconstruction. Additionally it is designed so that a mezzanine level can be built to provide storage space in case of floods.
|Bangladesh||2008||Natural Disaster||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.8|
|Pakistan, 2010, Floods||2010||Floods||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.09)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter is a rectangular structure with a flat roof with approximate dimensions of 4.8m x 3.9m. Walls are built with 230mm thick unreinforced fire burned brick walls supporting the roof. The roof is constructed with ceramic tiles supported on steel beams, and a cement plaster coating is placed on top of the tiles. The foundation consists of unreinforced brick footings and foundation walls. The mud plastered floor is raised a minimum of 610mm above the surrounding ground surface. As designed, the shelter has one door and one window, along with air vents near the top of the walls.
|Pakistan||2010||Natural Disaster||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.9|
|Sri Lanka, 2010, Conflict||2010||Conflict||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs (B.10)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
This shelter is a rectangular structure with a gable roof and an enclosed floor area of approximately 3.5m x
2.8m with an additional covered veranda of approximately 3.5m x 2.8m. The exterior walls are built with unreinforced bricks with six reinforced masonry piers. All masonry blocks are fabricated by the shelter occupants prior to construction. The roof consists of coconut wood rafters and purlins supporting corrugated iron sheet roofing. The compacted earth and concrete floor is raised above the surrounding ground surface. The perimeter walls extend into the ground, and are supported on brick footings. The modular construction for the shelter allows for expansion in both horizontal directions with only minor modifications to the core shelter. As designed, the shelter has one door and one window.
|Sri Lanka||2010||Conflict||Technical||Post-Disaster Shelter: 10 Designs||B.10|
|Indonesia, 2009, Earthquake||2009||Earthquake||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs (B.01)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
The rectangular bamboo frame structure measures 6m x 4m on plan and has a hipped roof of terracotta tiles
laid on bamboo matting and laths. The frame has woven bamboo matting walls, a door at the front and two windows on each side. The back section has a raised floor which forms a sleeping area constructed from bamboo joists and panelling. The floor void has been filled with rubble confined by a low masonry wall all round. The structure is braced with bamboo members on all sides which provides stability with an additional roof truss in the centre. The shelter is supported by five bucket foundations with a length of bamboo cast in to connect to the four main columns. The frame connections are pinned using bamboo pegs and then secured with rope. The roofing and flooring are fixed with nails.
|Indonesia||2009||Natural Disaster||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs||B.1|
|Indonesia, 2009, Earthquake||2009||Earthquake||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs (B.02)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
The shelter is a timber framed structure with palm roofing and walls. It measures 4.5m x 4m on plan and is 3.35m tall to the ridge beam and 2.4m to the eaves. It has a pitched roof of 23.6 degrees. There is no bracing, but some stability is provided by three portal frames tied together by horizontal members at ground, eaves and ridge level. Each portal frame is made up of two or three columns and a roof truss with rafters and corner bracing members. The corner bracing in the frames provides lateral stiffness. Secondary non-structural members include: floor joists, roof joists spanning between rafters and transoms to support palm matting wall panels. The shelter has a suspended floor. This is assumed to be coconut wood boarding spanning between the floor joists. The columns are embedded into concrete bucket foundations that sit directly on the ground.
|Indonesia||2009||Natural Disaster||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs||B.2|
|Pakistan, 2010, Floods||2010||Floods||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs (B.03)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
The shelter consists of 7 triangular frames, connected by a ridge pole. The ridge pole is supported by two 2.74m high vertical columns at each end. The shelter is 4.3m x 5.7m on plan. It has a low (0.9m) brick wall constructed inside the frame to provide protection against flood damage and retain warmth. The roof is pitched at 44 degrees and is made of corrugated steel sheeting. The sheeting is nailed to purlins that span between the frames. The roof sheeting is laid on top of locally available insulating material and plastic sheeting. The foundation of the shelter is provided by burying the rafters and columns approximately 0.3m in to the ground on top of stone footings. Guy ropes over the roof sheeting have been used to help prevent uplift under wind loads.
|Pakistan||2010||Natural Disaster||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs||B.3|
|Peru, 2007, Earthquake||2007||Earthquake||2 Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs (B.04)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
The shelter has a Bolaina (Bolayna) timber braced frame, measuring 3m x 6m on plan with a single pitched roof at four degrees. The shelter is clad with tongue and groove solid timber board walls and a corrugated fibre cement sheet roof. It is 2.4m high and stands on a new or existing concrete floor slab. In instances where a new slab has been used, wire ties wrapped around nails have been cast into the slab and attached to the frame at all column locations to resist uplift. Where existing slabs have been used the shelter has been staked to posts installed outside the slab. The shelter is constructed as 6 panels which are then nailed together using connecting wooden members, connecting plates and plastic strapping. A central roof edge beam is attached to the panels and are purlins nailed on top of this to support the roof.
|Peru||2007||Natural Disaster||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs||B.4|
|Peru, 2007, Earthquake||2007||Earthquake||2 Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs (B.05)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
The structure is a rigid box consisting of braced frames in both directions. The braced frames provide lateral stability. The eucalyptus timber frame has a flat roof and is covered with stapled plastic sheeting and nailed palm matting on all faces. The shelter is 2m high and 3m x 6m on plan. The bracing consists of crossed twisted wires. The 75mm diameter columns are connected horizontally with 50mm diameter horizontal members. The foundation and floor consists of an unreinforced concrete slab with cast in wire ties. The connections between members are made using bent nails.
|Peru||2007||Natural Disaster||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs||B.5|
|Haiti, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs (B.06)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
The shelter consists of a galvanised rectangular steel frame with an 8.5 degree mono-pitch roof and a suspended floor. The height to the eaves is 2.55m and 3m to the ridge and there is no bracing. The shelter is 3 x 6 m on plan and has 6 columns spaced on a 3m grid, fixed to 800x800x400mm rectangular reinforced concrete foundations using a 300x300x6mm base plate and four ordinary bolts per base. The raised floor is also supported by 13 additional stub columns on 100x100x6mm base plates bearing directly on to the soil. The main structure is three primary frames with rectangular hollow section columns. The roof cladding is corrugated steel sheeting nailed to steel secondary roof members spaced at 0.75m intervals spanning between the three primary frames. Timber studs are screwed to the steel members and the plastic wall sheeting is attached to this. Additional timber sub-framing is used to form windows and doors.
|Haiti||2010||Natural Disaster||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs||B.6|
|Indonesia, 2004, Earthquake/Tsunami||2004||Earthquake/Tsunami||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs (B.07)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
The structure consists of a cold rolled, hot dip galvanised steel frame with a pitched roof of 24.3 degrees and a raised floor. The height is 2.8m to the eaves and 4.15m to the ridge. The platform area of the shelter is 25m2 with a cantilevering balcony at opposite sides front and back and a cantilevering roof covering the balconies. There are 6 columns fixed using column base plates nailed directly into the ground. Metal roof sheets are screwed to steel purlins spanning between primary roof beams. Limited lateral stability is provided by timber plank wall cladding fixed to timber studs that are in turn screwed to the steel frame. The floor consists of timber planks spanning between steel joists.
|Indonesia||2004||Natural Disaster||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs||B.7|
|Vietnam, 2004, Typhoon||2004||Typhoon||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs (B.08)||NOTE: See full document for explanation of terms. Do not reproduce these designs without considering the specific implementation context. |
The shelter is a galvanised lightweight steel frame with plywood walls and a corrugated steel sheet roof. It has a covered area of 3.6 x 8.4m on plan including a living area of 3.6 x 7.2m. The roof has a pitch of 16.5 degrees. The height of the roof varies from 3.2m at the eaves to 4.6m at the ridge. There are two doors, one at the side and one at the front, and a cantilevered canopy projecting 1.3m beyond the door to form a porch. There are twelve columns, six of which have screw in ground anchor foundations, connected in pairs by a braced truss to form a moment frame. The stability system is formed by these three moment frames tied together by two further moment frames on each edge of the building. There is steel tie bracing underneath the roof sheeting. The shelter has a 100mm thick concrete slab base cast over the screw anchor foundations and floor tie beams. There is a low, non-structural, 0.5m, brickwork wall providing a degree of flood protection.
|Vietnam||2004||Natural Disaster||Technical||T-shelter: 8 designs||B.8|
|DRC, 2002, Volcano||2002||Volcano||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (A.01)||Disaster: Goma volcano eruption in 2002 |
Summary: Distribution of mostly locally procured materials for beneficiaries to build their own transitional shelters on self-selected plots after the eruption of the volcano in Goma. The distribution was accompanied by technical support and distribution monitoring.
|Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Direct, Technical expertise||Dem. Rep. Congo||2002||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||A.1|
|Eritrea, 1998, Conflict||1998||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (A.02)||Emergency: IDPs in camps in Eritrea following Eritrea/ Ethiopia conflict |
Summary: Support for a variable population of Eritrean IDPs following the conflict with Ethiopia. The agency in this case study was the main provider of shelter and non-food item (NFI) assistance. They provided IDPs with tents, tarpaulins and other non-food items (such as stoves) to those living in camps in the Gash-Barka, Debub and Red Sea states. The provision of durable shelter items was not possible due to political interests in ensuring that the camps were temporary. As a result, IDPs often adapted the emergency shelter items they received in order to improve their living conditions.
|Household items, Construction materials, Technical expertise||Eritrea||1998||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||A.2|
|Kenya, Dadaab, 2007, Floods/Conflict||2007||Floods/Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (A.03)||Emergency: Ifo refugee camp flood response, Dadaab, Kenya, 2007 |
Summary: Through a combination of upgrading and emergency response funding, 500 families were assisted in making bricks and building shelters through a community-based construction programme following flooding in a large refugee camp.
|Tools, Community||Kenya||2007||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||A.3|
|Kenya, 2008, Conflict||2008||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (A.04)||Emergency: Kenyan election crisis, 2007-2008. |
Summary: Provision of transitional shelter kits as a pilot project in the Rift Valley of Kenya, before upscaling to a national response. Shelters were designed to be adapted by beneficiaries into permanent homes and, except in the case of vulnerable households, were erected by the beneficiaries themselves.
|Construction materials, Tools, Technical expertise||Kenya||2008||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||A.4|
|Liberia, 2007, Conflict||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (A.05)||Emergency: Liberian returnees, 2007 |
Summary: Shelter assistance to vulnerable returnees (IDPs and refugees). Building materials were provided and cash incentives were given to communities for construction. The agency provided technical support and close project monitoring in collaboration with the community.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Technical expertise||Liberia||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||A.5|
|Mozambique, 2007, Cyclone||2007||Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (A.06)||Emergency: Cyclone Favio in northern Inhambane, Mozambique, February 2007 |
Summary: Despite having no previous shelter programming experience in the country, no emergency shelter stockpile and a delay in funding, the agency distributed shelter materials with technical advice to the most vulnerable people affected by the cyclone (child-headed households, widows, the chronically ill, handicapped, etc.) in two districts.
|Construction materials||Mozambique||2007||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||A.6|
|Rwanda, 2008, Conflict||2008||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (A.07)||Emergency: Forced repatriation of people of ‘Rwandan origin’ from Tanzania to Rwanda. |
Summary: This project provided support to people of Rwandan origin expelled from Tanzania by providing materials for house building, masons and providing shared services at the site of return. Communities were mobilised by forming beneficiary associations in consultation with the local government. The role of the associations was to collectivise the tasks required for house building.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Community, Direct, Technical expertise||Rwanda||2008||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||A.7|
|Somalia, 2007, Conflict||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (A.08)||Emergency: Somalia civil conflict – 1991 onwards (chronic emergency) |
Summary: A resettlement project in Puntland, Somalia, preceded by in-depth discussions on the concepts of access to land for IDPs and related negotiations on land rights. A consortium of agencies built a serviced community settlement supporting beneficiaries in the construction of extendable singleroom houses and providing them with temporary shelters on their new plot.
|Core housing / progressive shelter, Technical expertise||Somalia||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||A.8|
|Sudan, Darfur, 2004, Conflict||2004||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (A.09)||Emergency: Response to displacement caused by violent conflict in Darfur, Sudan, 2004 (ongoing) |
Summary: A joint distribution mechanism, which would later include joint procurement, was set up by a consortium of NGOs and UN agencies to standardise the procurement and distribution of basic shelter materials to those displaced by the conflict.
|Household items, Construction materials||Sudan||2004||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||A.9|
|Afghanistan, 2002, Conflict||2002||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.01)||Emergency: Afghanistan repatriation 2002-2008. |
Summary: A large-scale, self-build shelter programme implemented through partner organisations to help meet the needs of the 5 million people returning to Afghanistan since 2002, following conflict since 1979. Different shelter models were adopted around the country depending on local construction technology. This programme provided materials, basic technical guidance and cash for the most vulnerable people. It was integrated with monitoring and support for return. Escalating steel prices severely affected the programme, leaving it US$ 5 million under budget for 2008.
|Household items, Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Direct, Technical expertise||Afghanistan||2002||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||B.1|
|Azerbaijan, 1992, Conflict||1992||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.02)||Emergency: Nagorno Karabakh conflict |
Summary: This programme upgraded and maintained public buildings that people had moved to during the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh in the early 1990s. The project worked with families who, by the end of the project, had been displaced for over ten years. The way of working evolved over time, starting with contractor-led construction and evolving into direct implementation by the NGO. Although the project closed without a clear exit strategy, aspects of the project were taken up by the government in their housing policies.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Community, Technical expertise||Azerbaijan||1992||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||B.2|
|India, 2001, Earthquake||2001||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.03)||Emergency: Gujarat earthquake, January 2001 |
Summary: An international NGO worked in partnership with a network of 22 local NGOs to rapidly implement a non-food items distribution programme followed by a transitional shelter programme that built over 27,000 shelters. By working with local organisations, existing networks and local knowledge was used to effectively deliver materials and help construct shelters on a very large scale.
The speed and scale of the programme, combined with the different approaches of the international and the national organisation, led to a lack of the paperwork required by donors.
|Household items, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Direct, Technical expertise||India||2001||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||B.3|
|Indonesia, 2004, Earthquake/Tsunami||2004||Earthquake/Tsunami||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.04)||Emergency: Earthquake followed by tsunami |
Summary: This programme began with the concept of community-built, ‘transitional’ timber-framed shelters, managed and implemented by the community over a period of months. Due to the challenges in procuring legal or sustainable timber, local politics, the availability of significant funds and the number of other NGOs working in the area, the project evolved into a programme to build houses made from reinforced concrete and brick. The programme lasted over three years. Towards the end of the programme, many of the shelters were built by partner organisations.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Contracted, Direct, Technical expertise||Indonesia||2004||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||B.4|
|Ingushetia (Russia), 1999, Conflict||1999||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.08)||Emergency: Internal displacement of civilians following 2nd armed conflict in Chechnya,1999 |
Summary: An international donor, in close cooperation with the international leading agency for shelter assistance in Ingushetia, provided cash grants to every family that hosted displaced people from the conflict in neighbouring Chechnya. The project goal was to prevent IDPs, who were being accommodated by host families, from being evicted during winter. This was achieved though the provision of cash grants to all registered host families in Ingushetia.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Contracted, Direct, Technical expertise||Russian Federation||1999||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||B.8|
|Pakistan, 2005, Earthquake||2005||Earthquake||Overview||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.09-11)||Emergency: South Asia earthquake, 2005 |
Summary: Of the many responses that took place, the two case studies included in this section illustrate emergency shelter programmes. Both were conducted to support people through the first winter. One of the projects involves the construction of transitional shelters with a phased delivery of materials, while the other involves the distribution of shelter materials and toolkits.
|Pakistan||2005||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2008||B.9-11|
|Pakistan, 2005, Earthquake||2005||Earthquake||2 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.09-11)||Emergency: South Asia earthquake, 2005 |
Summary: Of the many responses that took place, the two case studies included in this section illustrate emergency shelter programmes. Both were conducted to support people through the first winter. One of the projects involves the construction of transitional shelters with a phased delivery of materials, while the other involves the distribution of shelter materials and toolkits.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Community, Direct, Technical expertise||Pakistan||2005||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||B.9-11|
|Sri Lanka, 2007, Conflict||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.12)||Emergency: Civil conflict in Sri Lanka |
Summary: This project built core shelters for families returning to their villages after being displaced by conflict. The construction was owner driven, allowing families to later expand the shelter as their circumstances allowed and for the same initial costs as less durable ‘semi-permanent’ shelters. Expansion and adaptation of the shelters happened very early on among the majority of beneficiary households.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Technical expertise||Sri Lanka||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||B.12|
|Sri Lanka, 2004, Tsunami||2004||Tsunami||Case study and Overview||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.13-14)||Emergency: Indian Ocean tsunami, 26 December 2004 |
Summary: Using easy-to-construct and easy-to-carry metal frame shelters adapted from previous Sri Lanka programmes, the NGO was able to support affected families in 27 different villages along the coastline.
The project avoided the creation of large camps, focusing instead on helping people to build on customary plots of land that belonged to them or were negotiated from land owners.
|Household items, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Direct, Technical expertise||Sri Lanka||2004||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||B.13-14|
|Indonesia, 2006, Earthquake||2006||Earthquake||Overview||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.5-7)||Emergency: Jogyakarta/Central Java earthquake, 24 May 2006 |
Summary: The case studies included in this section involve two organisations that both responded in phases: an initial distribution of emergency items, followed by a transitional shelter response. Both organisations used cash grants, either to individuals or to local organisations, to implement the transitional shelter programmes.
|Indonesia||2006||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2008||B.5-7|
|Indonesia, 2006, Earthquake||2006||Earthquake||2 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2008 (B.5-7)||Emergency: Jogyakarta/Central Java earthquake, 24 May 2006 |
Summary: The case studies included in this section involve two organisations that both responded in phases: an initial distribution of emergency items, followed by a transitional shelter response. Both organisations used cash grants, either to individuals or to local organisations, to implement the transitional shelter programmes.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Direct, Technical expertise||Indonesia||2006||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||B.5-7|
|Honduras, 1998, Hurricane||1998||Hurricane||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (C.01)||Emergency: Hurricane Mitch, 1998 |
Summary: The programme provided materials and technical assistance for construction of a 3.05m x 3.65m wood-framed shelter in central and southern Honduras for victims of Hurricane Mitch. The roof was made of galvanized roof sheets that were reused when the families rebuilt their houses with more durable materials. The sides were made of reinforced good quality woven plastic sheeting. The shelter included a door and two windows with nets to provide both privacy and ventilation.
|Honduras||1998||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||C.1|
|Peru, 2007, Earthquake||2007||Earthquake||3 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2008 (C.02-5)||Emergency: Peru earthquake, 15 August 2007 |
Summary: The three case studies included here are responses by nongovernmental organisations. One rapidly distributed construction materials using existing community structures, one built shelters providing some cash for work on the shelters and one used contractors to build shelters with the shelter owners. All of these projects worked with those who already had land.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Contracted, Direct, Technical expertise||Peru||2007||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||C.2-5|
|Peru, 2007, Earthquake||2007||Earthquake||Overview||Shelter Projects 2008 (C.02-5)||Emergency: Peru earthquake, 15 August 2007 |
Summary: The three case studies included here are responses by nongovernmental organisations. One rapidly distributed construction materials using existing community structures, one built shelters providing some cash for work on the shelters and one used contractors to build shelters with the shelter owners. All of these projects worked with those who already had land.
|Peru||2007||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2008||C.2-5|
|India, 1971, Conflict||1971||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (D.02)||Emergency: Civil war in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) |
Summary: Refugee camps were designed in decentralised ‘village’ groupings. Construction and upgrading was undertaken in three phases: meeting basic needs, sustainable upgrading and maintenance of the camps. Emphasis was given first to sanitation and public health issues, and then to the emotional and social well-being of the inhabitants. From the lessons learned in this response, the first-ever humanitarian camp planning guidelines were developed.
|Construction materials, Training||India||1971||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||D.2|
|Nicaragua, 1972, Earthquake||1972||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (D.03)||Emergency: Earthquake in the capital city of Managua |
Summary: Working with displaced families, the NGO created a camp layout in Masaya, which, for the first time, grouped families into group clusters and supported community networks. This resulted in a camp with a much higher occupancy rate than any other camp built in response to the disaster, and at much lower costs.
|Emergency shelter, Site planning, Direct||Nicaragua||1972||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||D.3|
|Bangladesh, 1975, Conflict||1975||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (D.04)||Emergency: Bangladesh War of Independence, 1971 |
Summary: Long-term camps for displaced stateless populations were upgraded using cyclone-resistant shelter designs made from local materials in order to reorganise and upgrade small camps along community cluster designs.
|Emergency shelter, Site planning, Direct||Bangladesh||1975||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||D.4|
|Guatemala, 1976, Earthquake||1976||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (D.05)||Emergency: Earthquake in Guatemala |
Summary: Housing materials were distributed, and training and advice were provided through locally hired teams. The aim of this was to accelerate reconstruction and provide community-wide training on seismic-resistant construction techniques.
|Construction materials, Training||Guatemala||1976||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||D.5|
|India, 1977, Cyclone||1977||Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (D.06)||Emergency: Cyclone in Andhra Pradesh, India |
Summary: The distribution of basic kits of local materials, supplemented by materials for strengthening cyclone resistance, was supported by the inter-organisational creation of a special centre to provide technical training and information. The project was timed, and in some cases postponed, to ensure that labour was not diverted from agricultural tasks and to ensure the availability of appropriate materials.
|Construction materials, Training||India||1977||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||D.6|
|Thailand, 1979-1980, Conflict||1979-1980||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (D.07)||Emergency:Invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam, December 1978 |
Summary: For the first time, clear numeric standards were introduced via the distribution of an operations policy and standards manual to each camp to ensure equitable minimum services, based primarily on public health and water/sanitation concerns. Two camps were planned according to these standards, using a decentralisation of services, and in later cases a ‘checkerboard’ design that provided internal space for some expansion.
|Emergency shelter, Site planning, Guidelines / materials /mass communications, Direct, Technical expertise||Thailand||1979||1980||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||D.7|
|Tonga, 1982, Cyclone||1982||Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (D.08)||Emergency: Cyclone Isaac, 3 March 1982 |
Summary: The settlement-focused ‘Quick Impact Projects’ gave responsibility and control to beneficiary villages. A parallel programme on disaster mitigation strategy offered the technical tools to ensure that the awareness of how to ‘build back safer’ would be incorporated into projects.
|Construction materials, Training, Community, Technical expertise||Tonga||1982||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||D.8|
|Sudan, 1985, Conflict||1985||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008 (D.09)||Emergency: Civil war and famine in Ethiopia (Eritrea and Tigray) 1983-1984 |
Summary: Relocating refugees from smaller camps gave time to create better sites and facilities in the larger camps built as part of the second stage. Building camps using a hierarchy of shelter groupings (cluster-block-sector) helped the humanitarian actors ensure support for the cycle of repatriation.
|Construction materials, Emergency shelter, Site planning, Community, Direct, Technical expertise||Sudan||1985||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2008||D.9|
|Afghanistan, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.01)||Emergency: Afghanistan returns to Sozma Qala camp |
Summary: An emergency team rapidly winterised a temporary transit camp. The site was for 379 families for refugees returned from Iran to their district of origin in northern Afghanistan. To improve the existing tents, a production line was set up in the camp to build bamboo and plastic sheeting shelters, which provided additional protection from severe winter weather. The structure was developed from a model implemented in Pakistan Administered Kashmir in 2006-2007
|Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Community||Afghanistan||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||A.1|
|Afghanistan, 2002, Conflict||2002||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.02)||See Shelter Projects 2008 (B.1) |
Emergency: Afghanistan repatriation 2002-2008
Summary: A large scale, self-build. shelter programme implemented through partner organisations.
Update: This programme continued in 2009 and looks set to continue for many years to come. The lead organisation continued to develop detailed guidance for partner organisations.
|Household items, Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Direct, Technical expertise||Afghanistan||2002||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009||A.2|
|DRC, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.04)||Emergency: Ongoing armed conflict. |
Summary: Multi-sectoral support to ‘Umoja’ (solidarity) hosting and hosted families following an influx of displaced people into Goma. Families were provided with materials for either repair or additions / extensions to existing housing, as well as key household items using a voucher system.
|Household items, Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Technical expertise||Dem. Rep. Congo||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||A.4|
|Eritrea, 2004, Conflict||2004||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.05)||See Shelter Projects 2008 (A.2) |
Emergency: IDPs in camps in Eritrea following Eritrea / Ethiopia conflict
Update: By mid-2008 Eritrea, officially, there were no conflict displaced people
in Eritrea. The government had resettled the last 11,000 living in camps in Debub. However, United Nations Development Programme in Eritrea reported in January 2009 that an unspecified number of displaced people were still living with host families.
|Household items, Construction materials||Eritrea||2004||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009||A.5|
|Gaza, Palestine, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.06)||Emergency: Conflict – “Operation Cast Lead” |
Summary: The organisation implementing this project advised on the allocation of grants from families whose houses had been damaged or destroyed by the invasion of Gaza. 12,000 assessments were carried out with 5,000 found to be eligible from 29,000 applications. However, the blockade on Gaza meant that materials were not available for families to rebuild their homes.
|Technical expertise, Urban||Palestine||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||A.6|
|Georgia, 2008, Conflict||2008||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.07)||Emergency: Conflict 8-12 August, 2008 |
Summary: Support of families whose homes had been damaged or destroyed during the conflict, in order that they could stay in their homes during the first winter. Building repairs and then the provision of a ‘one warm cottage’ was supplemented by distributions of NFIs and firewood.
|Household items, Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Direct||Georgia||2008||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||A.7|
|Kenya, 2008, Conflict||2008||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.09)||Emergency: Kenyan election crisis, 2007-2008 |
Summary: Provision of transitional shelter kits as a pilot project in the Rift Valley of Kenya, before upscaling to a national response. Shelters were designed to be adapted by beneficiaries into permanent homes and, except in the case of vulnerable households, were erected by the beneficiaries themselves.
|Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Technical expertise||Kenya||2008||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009||A.9|
|Kenya, Dadaab, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.10)||Emergency: Conflict - Somali refugee influx |
Summary: Existing construction programmes were continued and scaled up. Following previous years’ shelter activities, a full evaluation of the number of shelters that could be built was conducted. It was agreed that security, logistics, and availabilty of sustainable materials limited construction to 3500 shelters per year as a maximum.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Community, Direct, Technical expertise||Kenya||2009||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009||A.10|
|Kenya, Dadaab, 2008, Conflict||2008||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.11)||Emergency: Ifo refugee camp flood response, Dadaab, Kenya 2007 |
Summary: A combination of shelter upgrading and emergency response funding assisted 500 families were to make bricks and build shelters. The project was implemented through a community-based construction program following flooding in a large refugee camp.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Community, Direct, Technical expertise||Kenya||2008||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009||A.11|
|Liberia, 2007, Conflict||2007||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.12)||Emergency: Liberian returnees, 2007. |
Summary: Shelter assistance for vulnerable returnees (IDP and refugees). Building materials were provided and cash incentives given to communities for construction. The agency provided technical support and close project monitoring in collaboration with the community.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Technical expertise||Liberia||2007||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009||A.12|
|Rwanda, 2008, Conflict||2008||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.13)||See Shelter Projects 2008 (A.7) |
Emergency: Forced repatriation of people of ‘Rwandan origin’ from Tanzania to Rwanda
Update: In 2009, 119 returnee families from Tanzania were still living in the Kiyanzi camp. A project had been
initiated to build 110 houses, a permanent shelter solution for beneficiaries who had poor access to both water
and health services in the camp.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Direct, Technical expertise||Rwanda||2008||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009||A.13|
|Somalia, 2008, Conflict||2008||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.14)||OVERVIEW |
Summary: Since 1991, Somalia has remained without a central government and has been in a state of intense factional fighting and civil war. Chronic insecurity and periods of drought have led to massive displacement of populations. By 2009 there were more than 1.3 million internally displaced people in Somalia, with nearly 100,000 people newly displaced in the months of May and June 2009.
|Urban||Somalia||2008||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2009||A.14|
|Somalia, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.15)||Emergency: Somalia conflict 1991 onwards. Project implementation 2008 onwards |
Summary: To meet the shelter needs of displaced people living in urban temporary settlements in the cities of Galkayo and Bosasso in Somalia, multiple approaches to shelter were used. To reduce risk of fire, fire breaks were made, sites were cleaned up, safe cooking areas were established and stoves were distributed. To meet shelter needs tents were designed and distributed. Additional support was provided in sanitation, hygiene
promotion, and the construction of latrines.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Urban||Somalia||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||A.15|
|Somalia, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.16)||Emergency: 1991 onwards. Project implementation 2008 |
Summary: In dense urban settlements in Hargeisa, 634 transitional shelters were constructed in two temporary settlements. The project was implemented by two local partner NGOs. The construction was accompanied by improving site planning with access roads and by sanitation activites, implmented by other organisations.
|Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Direct, Technical expertise, Urban||Somalia||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||A.16|
|Somalia, 2007, Conflict||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.17)||See Shelter Projects 2008 (A.8) |
Emergency: Somalia civil conflict – 1991 onwards (chronic emergency)
|Core housing / progressive shelter, Technical expertise, Urban||Somalia||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||A.17|
|Sri Lanka, 2007, Conflict||2007||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.18)||See Shelter Projects 2008 (B.12) |
Emergency: Civil Conflict in Sri Lanka
Update: The ‘core shelter’ design and methodology was taken on by other NGO’s providing shelter in the areas of return. In total over 1100 of the shelters were constructed across Trincomalee district
by five different organisations. The design has further evolved to meet the demands of the government in regard to the resettlement in the North of the Sri Lanka.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Technical expertise||Sri Lanka||2007||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2009||A.18|
|Sudan, Darfur, 2004, Conflict||2004||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (A.19)||See Shelter Projects 2008 (A.9) |
Emergency: Displacement due to conflict in Darfur, Sudan, 2004 (ongoing).
Update: A monitoring report from 2008 showed plastic sheeting to be the most valuable commodity. Affected families expressed their concerns about the quality of some of the plastic sheeting and the quantity (one sheet is distributed per household). A survey showed that just 4% of non food items and 20% of plastic sheets distributed more than a year previously were still used by the recipients.
|Household items, Construction materials||Sudan||2004||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||A.19|
|Bangladesh, 2009, Cyclone||2009||Cyclone||Overview||Shelter Projects 2009 (B.01)||Emergency: Cyclone Aila |
Summary: Critically, Aila destroyed more than 700 km of coastal embankments. After five months, over 200,000 people were still living in very basic temporary shelters, unable to return because their homesteads were still under water. One year later, repair of the embankments was far from complete. As a result of lack of land and funds, there were far fewer reconstruction support programmes than there had been for Cyclone Sidr, and thousands of families remained more vulnerable to future flooding.
|Bangladesh||2009||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2009||B.1|
|Bangladesh, 2007, Cyclone||2007||Cyclone||Overview||Shelter Projects 2009 (B.02)||Emergency: Cyclone Sidr |
Summary: Cyclone Sidr hit the south-western coast of Bangladesh during the evening of November 15th 2007. Cyclone Sidr destroyed over 450,000 houses across 30 districts, through wind damage, flooding and tidal surge. More than 50 percent of households in all of the six worst affected districts were either damaged or destroyed.
|Bangladesh||2007||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2009||B.2|
|Bangladesh, 2007, Cyclone||2007||Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (B.03)||Emergency: Cyclone Sidr |
Summary: To meet the housing needs of 1250 cyclone affected families, a programme working in many sectors of support was conducted. Families were identified through a detailed but slow transparent validation process. Families received a house, toolkits, cash and training.
|Household items, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Direct, Technical expertise||Bangladesh||2007||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||B.3|
|China, Sichuan, 2008, Earthquake||2008||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (B.04)||Emergency: Sichuan Earthquake |
Summary: Cash grants were distributed to around 63,000 rural households who fulfilled the selection criteria in Mianzhu County, Sichuan. Each household received the equivalent of 450 USD or 1500 USD (CNY 3,000 or 10,000) to help them to reconstruct earthquake damaged homes and housing related needs. As with most other aspects of the response, the government led on construction monitoring and training.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Community, Contracted, Technical expertise||China||2008||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||B.4|
|Haiti, 2008, Floods||2008||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (B.06)||Emergency: Hurricanes and tropical storms |
Summary: These shelter projects were in the complex urban environment of Gonaives, Haiti. Multiple approaches were used to support families living in collective centres and temporary sites to return. Initially programmes focussed on distributions of shelter items and toolkits. Later programmes diversified to include cash to support families that were renting, and shelter materials and support for those who had identified land.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Technical expertise, Urban||Haiti||2008||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||B.6|
|Italy, 2009, Earthquake||2009||Earthquake||Overview||Shelter Projects 2009 (B.12)||OVERVIEW |
Summary: The earthquake of April 6th 2009 was the deadliest to hit Italy since 1980, and the first major earthquake in 300 years to hit the Abruzzo region. The town of L’Aquila was severely affected and is a historic town known for its university and the arts.
|Italy||2009||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2009||B.12|
|Italy, 2009, Earthquake||2009||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (B.13)||Emergency: Earthquake in Abruzzo region. |
Summary: The organisation used contractors to build three different sizes and designs of shelter for 100 families affected by the earthquake. This was a pilot programme, from which the government designed a programme to house an additional 3475 families. The government led the overall shelter process limiting the inputs of the disaster affected families, whilst the organisation, facilitated discussions to encourage involvement of the earthquake affectees.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Contracted, Urban||Italy||2009||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||B.13|
|Myanmar, 2008, Cyclone||2008||Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (B.15)||Emergency: Cyclone Nargis |
Summary: The relief phase of this programme was a large-scale distribution programme of plastic sheeting and tool kits. Two plastic sheets were given to each family, and each tool kit was shared by five families. It was followed by programmes to support smaller numbers of families to build their shelters and build cyclone resistant community buildings.
|Construction materials, Cash / vouchers, Direct||Myanmar||2008||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||B.15|
|Uganda, 2007, Floods||2007||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (B.25)||Emergency: Floods |
Summary: 10,000 plastic sheets were distributed during the relief phase. These were for temporary roofing materials in the absence of grass, and were also used to prevent rain from destroying walls and moulded bricks. To ensure that communities rebuilt more flood resistant shelters, both communal and individual tool kits were distributed. These were combined with a large scale public information program on building back safer.
As the traditional building season was three months after the floods, during the dry season, the project had components of water, sanitation and agriculture. The approach taken was to work through community mobilisation.
|Construction materials, Community, Technical expertise||Uganda||2007||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||B.25|
|Algeria, 1980, Earthquake||1980||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.02)||Emergency: Earthquake (Richter 7.3) El Asnam Algeria |
Summary: One day after the earthquake, the Algerian President formed an Inter-Ministerial Reconstruction Commission. It was charged with three tasks (in order of priority):
1. save lives, prevent epidemic diseases, establish tent campsites; 2. evaluate losses, protect property; 3. prepare for reconstruction, noting the experiences of other earthquake-prone areas
Urgent attention was given to provide tents and shelter materials and campsites due to impending winter conditions. The affected opulation was asked by the government to occupy campsites for one year pending provision of temporary prefabricated housing. This promise was kept (EI Asnam town).
|Construction materials, Emergency shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Direct, Technical expertise||Algeria||1980||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.2|
|Guatemala, 1976, Earthquake||1976||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.04)||Emergency: Guatemla earthquake |
Summary: No clear policy on shelter emerged in the initial weeks following the earthquake. The Reconstruction Commission allocated towns and villages to the very large number of relief agencies. The Government planned to build 100,000 temporary houses with military support, but there was little follow-up. Many agencies adopted a policy of providing corrugated iron sheeting (lamina) which could serve as emergency shelter, and subsequently as permanent lightweight roofing. These programmes developed from week I onwards.
|Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter||Guatemala||1976||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.4|
|Haiti, 1982, Hurricane||1982||Hurricane||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.06)||Emergency: Hurricane Allen |
Summary: This report was written by Fred Cuny / Intertect in 1982. It summarises the different types of housing in southern Haiti. It goes on to suggest low-cost improvements that can be made to the houses in southern Haiti. Although the suggested housing upgrade programmes were not implemented, the suggestions remain relevant today. Illustrations from the document were copied for public information literature following the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
|Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Haiti||1982||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.6|
|Honduras, 1974, Hurricane||1974||Hurricane||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.08)||Emergency: Hurricane Fifi |
Summary: Eight large refugee camps were established. The largest was built in Choloma to house 318 families (1,831 people). In addition there were improvised shelters. The extended family system does not appear to have functioned effectively. Existing buildings, such as schools, were used as temporary shelter.
|Emergency shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Site planning||Honduras||1974||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.8|
|India, 1977, Cyclone||1977||Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.10)||Emergency: Cyclone 1977 |
Summary: The climate was warm and the monsoon season not imminent, so shelter needs were not a high priority, The Government made stocks of thatch and bamboo readily available for families to improvise shelters, and repair or rebuild their homes. An international non-governmental organisation, worked through Indian voluntary agencies to build 7,000 shelters in 90 days.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter||India||1977||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.10|
|Nicaragua, 1972, Earthquake||1972||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.14)||Emergency: 7.5 magnitude earthquake Managua, Nicaragua |
Summary: The government policy was to evacuate Managua city centre. The reasons given were the risks of looting and epidemics. The government provided campsites, in Masaya and outskirts of anagua, and assisted in building wooden huts for 11,600 families. Initially, urvivors tended to ignore government action, preferring to stay with friends and relatives.
|Nicaragua||1972||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.14|
|Turkey, 1976, Earthquake||1976||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.19)||Emergency: Earthquake Caldiran (Van) Turkey |
Summary: Survivors were encouraged by the government to move away from the affected area. One designated area was the Aegean coast. Prefabricated frame houses built with asbestos panels and timber were constructed after winter.
Tents were provided to accommodate families during the harsh winter conditions until prefabricated housing could commence in April 1977. Building work was not possible during the winter. There were difficulties in obtaining winterized tents, as the entire world stockpile was inadequate.
|Turkey||1976||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.19|
|Turkey, 1975, Earthquake||1975||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.20)||Emergency: Earthquake 1975 |
Summary: The emergency shelter policy was to provide over 3600 tents through the Turkish Red Crescent, and to accelerate reconstruction. Voluntary Agencies followed their own policies, e.g. the Oxfam built 463 igloos. The Ministry of Reconstruction and Resettlement moved the town of Lice 2 km to the south due to the risk of rockfalls at the old site.
The housing policy was to provide prefabricated homes, not to rebuild in local building tradition. The town of Lice was planned for an eventual population of 20,000, which was twice the pre-earthquake total.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter||Turkey||1975||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.20|
|Turkey, 1970, Earthquake||1970||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.21)||Emergency: 7.2 magnitude earthquake Gediz Turkey |
Summary: In Gediz temporary shelter was used only for a very short period. in Ackaalan 400 polyeurythane domes were built and occupiedt. Imported labour was used for the clearing rubble.
The Government decided to rebuild Gediz 5 km to the south of the destroyed town. The town of Ackaalan was rebuilt on the original site. The government built 9100 apartments in three years.
|Emergency shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Site planning, Infrastructure||Turkey||1970||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.21|
|UK, 1945, Conflict||1945||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.22)||Emergency: World War 2 |
Summary: To meet the housing crisis of 1945 at the end of the second world war, the British government built 156,600 prefabricated houses as a temporary measure over the space of three years. 65 years later, many of these houses are still occupied. However the houses were comparatively expensive, and the programme failed to address the underlying issues of land ownership.
|Core housing / progressive shelter, Infrastructure||United Kingdom||1945||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.22|
|Yugoslavia-Ex, 1963, Earthquake||1963||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009 (C.23)||Emergency: 6.9 Richter scale earthquake Skopje, Yugoslavia |
Summary: A national preparedness organisation assumed control and implemented an evacuation policy. 150,000 women and children left the city within 3 weeks; 60,000 men were available for cleaning, repairing and erecting housing; 1,900 prefabricated ‘temporary’ houses were built by international organisations; they were intended for eventual agricultural use.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Housing repair and retrofitting, Infrastructure||Macedonia||1963||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2009||C.23|
|Afghanistan, 2010, Conflict||2010||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.01)||Emergency: Afghanistan returns to Sozma Qala camp |
Summary: An emergency team rapidly winterised a temporary transit camp. The site was for 379 families of refugees returning after 23 years. Two years later 320 families remained at the site with dwindling funding for external support. To improve the existing tents, weather mitigating tent structures (WMTS) were built from bamboo and plastic sheeting. They lasted for more than two years - longer than expected.
|Household items, Construction materials, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Site planning||Afghanistan||2010||Conflict||Update||Shelter Projects 2010||A.1|
|Chile, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.02)||Emergency: Earthquake |
Summary: Following a non-food item distribution to 10,000 households, plastic cards with magnetic strips were given to earthquake affected households. These cards were valid for 30 days from manufacture and could be redeemed in 40 pre-designated hardware stores located in the affected regions.
|Household items, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Chile||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.2|
|Grenada, 2010, Hurricane||2010||Hurricane||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.03)||Emergency: Hurricane Ivan (Cat. 4) & Hurricane Emily (Cat. 1) |
Summary: Over 2 years, the roofs of over 650 houses were repaired and 100 homes were built from scratch. 128 people were trained and certified as carpenters, over 2,000 houses were strengthened with hurricane straps and 32 communities were better prepared to face the next disaster.
|Construction materials, Housing repair and retrofitting, Training||Grenada||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.3|
|Haiti, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||Overview||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.04-11)||Emergency: 2010 Earthquake |
Summary: That hundreds of thousands of Haitians still face the very real prospect of remaining in camps during the upcoming 2012 hurricane season, and perhaps beyond, speaks volumes about the challenges of delivering humanitarian shelter assistance and housing reconstruction in Haiti - and elsewhere.
|Household items, Construction materials, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Support for host families, Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Site planning, Training, Structural assessment, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Haiti||2010||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2010||A.4-11|
|Haiti, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||6 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.04-11)||Emergency: 2010 Earthquake |
A.5: This project provided different forms of support for people with differing needs. In the emergency phase the organisation distributed 10,000 emergency shelter kits.
A.6: The programme provided safe and improved housing which helped people to leave the camps and allowed them to restart the recovery process. The programme included: 1) damage assessment, 2) house repairs 3) public communication and training manuals 4) training.
A.7: This organisation ran several projects focused on supporting economic, social, and political recovery. Shelter assistance was delivered through a variety of “shelter solutions”, including traditional wooden framed transitional shelter construction, steel framed transitional shelter construction, supporting host families through a livelihoods-based incentive system, and the removal of rubble.
A.8: This project built progressive shelter in two phases: a first emergency response (structure covered with tarpaulin) and a second durable solution (permanent housing with cement cladding). The project included safer construction awareness activities and safer construction trainings.
A.9: Families were relocated from a spontaneous settlement in the Haitian capital to a new planned camp in an area called Corail 20km away.
A.10: The project targeted displaced disabled people in rural locations in the south of Haiti. The project used a participatory approach to build durable shelters. The project re-engineered a well known traditional technique known as clissade making it more durable, suitable for mass assembly and later upgrade by beneficiaries.
A.11: The project supported people to leave overcrowded camps and encouraged them to lead their own recovery process. It provided transitional shelters for those with land, cash for those who needed to rent, and relocation grants for those who moved to different areas.
|Household items, Construction materials, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Support for host families, Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Site planning, Training, Structural assessment, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Haiti||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.4-11|
|Indonesia, 2009, Earthquake||2009||Earthquake||Overview||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.12-A.15)||Emergency: |
|Household items, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Support for host families, Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Training, Structural assessment||Indonesia||2009||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2010||A.12-A.15|
|Indonesia, 2009, Earthquake||2009||Earthquake||2 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.12-A.15)||Overview summary: The Government of Indonesia responded rapidly, with the assistance of the national and international humanitarian community. Whilst non-government agencies focused on emergency shelter, distributing an average of 2 tarpaulins per family, the government focused on rebuilding provincial government capacity, search and rescue and emergency relief. The emergency phase was declared over within 8 weeks. |
A.13: This project surveyed brick production and anticipated supply and demand. It was conducted one month after the earthquake. The survey was conducted as a trial of the EMMA (Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis) methodology. The survey findings were used to inform the adopted strategy of using cash to support the construction of shelters that used both timber and bricks.
A.14: Cash was distributed to allow 750 families to build transitional shelters. It built on the initial emergency shelter response in West Sumatra in which a package of shelter materials, toolkits, common household supplies and basic hygiene items had been supplied to 30,000 families. Each beneficiary household received approximately 275 USD and technical training on safe construction and minimum standards for shelter. A partner organisation provided technical advice on construction.
A.15: An international non-government organisation working through a local partner provided cash grants for shelter. Conditional cash grants were given to 3,400 families in two instalments. The local partner used six mobilisers to give technical support. Beneficiaries paid for materials and labour to build timber homes.
|Household items, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Support for host families, Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Training, Structural assessment||Indonesia||2009||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.12-A.15|
|Kyrgyzstan, 2010, Conflict||2010||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.16)||Emergency: Civil disturbances |
Summary: Working through international partner organisations, the lead agency was able to build 1,668 seismically resistant winterised homes in time for winter. Homes were rebuilt using locally procured materials on the foundations of destroyed properties. Teams of engineers, foremen, community mobilisers were hired to ensure that all families received the material and technical expertise needed.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers||Kyrgyzstan||2010||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.16|
|Malawi, 2009, Earthquake||2009||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.17)||Emergency: Earthquake |
Summary: The project provided materials, cash grants and training to build and repair houses. The project led to national guidelines on safer house construction that were adopted by the government. The project also provided psychological support, hygiene promotion, sanitation facilities for households and schools, and disseminated better building practice.
|Construction materials, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Malawi||2009||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.17|
|Mozambique, 2007, Cyclone||2007||Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.18)||Emergency: Cyclone Favio |
Summary: The project identified and tested innovative small-scale mitigation interventions for cyclones. It used participatory approaches and focused on local capacity building in vulnerable pilot areas. The major focus of the project was to disseminate the initiative and prepare the conditions for future replication. It also built 10 cyclone shelters.
|Housing repair and retrofitting, Advocacy / legal, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Mozambique||2007||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.18|
|Myanmar, 2008, Cyclone||2008||Cyclone||2 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.19-20)||Emergency: Cyclone Nargis |
A.19: 850 shelters were built and 800 shelters were retrofitted. All 1,650 shelters were provided with a latrine and a ceramic jar for water collection. The project aimed to address multiple issues of security, shelter recovery, livelihoods and future disaster resilience to provide a sustainable and holistic solution for the affected population. The project was implemented through the “People’s Process” where people organise themselves to identify and prioritise their needs and together take decisions on their recovery.
A.20: The project constructed 533 shelters by providing materials and carpenters, and was in response to a review one year after the cyclone which found many families remaining in poor shelter. The project had a significant training component, but had significant issues with procurement of materials of suitable quality.
|Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Cash / vouchers, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Myanmar||2008||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.19-20|
|Pakistan, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.21)||Emergency: IDP crisis |
Summary: The lead organisation worked with six partners and established community committees (jirga) to provide shelter for people returning to damaged or destroyed houses. Kits for constructing transitional shelters, including a kitchen and latrine, were distributed. Households were given cash towards the construction cost on completion of their house.
|Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Cash / vouchers, Training, Structural assessment, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Pakistan||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.21|
|Pakistan, 2010, Floods||2010||Floods||Overview||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.22-25)||Emergency: 2010 floods |
Overview: The 2010 monsoon season caused the worst flooding in Pakistan’s history, and one of the larger humanitarian crises of this century. The floods affected every province, over half of the districts in Pakistan, and one-tenth of Pakistan’s population. They damaged or destroyed 1.8 million homes, from the mountainous north where winters are cold, to the south where flooding caused the most damage. The scale was vast, but the funds did not meet the needs.
|Household items, Construction materials, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Pakistan||2010||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2010||A.22-25|
|Pakistan, 2010, Floods||2010||Floods||3 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.22-25)||Emergency: 2010 floods |
A.23: This pilot project built 175 one room shelters for flood affected families in South Pakistan. It was later followed by a much larger scale project (building thousands of shelters over 18 months). Working through partners, the agency provided the construction materials and paid for skilled labour. Each shelter was built from burnt brick and had an accompanying kitchen and latrine.
A.24: This large scale project provided cash to provide households with the means to buy materials and hire labour. Each household received the cash in 3 tranches. Each payment was made when a group of up to 25 households constructed to an agreed level. Payments were made via an agreed focal point for each group of households. The project was managed by 44 Implementing Partners spread over 3 provinces, most of them local agencies.
A.25: Provision of ‘One Room Core Shelter’ for flood affected vulnerable families in Jacobabad, Sindh Province, Pakistan. This project used a staged voucher system for beneficiaries to source all materials and to pay labour. This reduced logistical delays and greatly increased beneficiary participation. The design incorporated some disaster risk reduction considerations whilst still using predominantly local materials and practices.
|Household items, Construction materials, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Pakistan||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.22-25|
|Philippines, 2010, Cyclone||2010||Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.26)||Emergency: Typhoon Megi |
Summary: Vouchers were distributed to provide materials for the repair of 9,953 shelters. Two types of vouchers were tried. Initially people could choose from a given list of materials. Due to supply issues the project was adjusted so that people could choose the materials that they wanted up to a given value and from an approved list of suppliers. Families also received information on how to reinforce their homes against typhoons.
|Housing repair and retrofitting||Philippines||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.26|
|Romania, 2010, Floods||2010||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.27)||Emergency: Heavy rain and flooding |
Summary: This project mobilised 497 volunteers to help build and repair half of the homes damaged by the floods. It also built or repaired three schools. It managed to use donated materials and supplied families with materials and technical assistance to support self-help home repairs and renovations.
|Construction materials, Housing repair and retrofitting||Romania||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.27|
|Sri Lanka, 2009, Conflict||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.28)||Emergency: Population movement due to civil war |
Summary: This owner-driven programme provided cash to support people to build houses damaged or destroyed by the conflict. The project aimed to contribute to the sustainable rehabilitation and reconstruction in the north of Sri Lanka. It primarily supported people who have been displaced who were resettling after the conflict.
|Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers||Sri Lanka||2009||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.28|
|Tajikistan, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.29)||Emergency: Earthquake |
Summary: This project helped to rebuild communities affected by earthquakes in the Kumsangir district. It also aimed to help prepare remote rural communities against further earthquakes and mud slides. The project used alternative and affordable construction technologies and provided loans to help families to rebuild or repair their homes.
|Housing repair and retrofitting, Loans, Training||Tajikistan||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.29|
|Tonga, 2010, Tsunami||2010||Tsunami||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.30)||Emergency: Tsunami |
Summary: This project provided cyclone resistant transitional shelter, water supply and sanitation to 74 families who lost their homes and elected to remain on Niuatoputapu, while waiting for assistance to re-build permanent housing. The tsunami had destroyed the houses of more than half the island’s population. The shelter materials and construction teams were imported from an island 600km away.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter||Tonga||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.30|
|Vietnam, 2009, Typhoon||2009||Typhoon||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (A.31)||Emergency: Typhoon Ketsana and Typhoon Mirinae |
Summary: This permanent shelter project was implemented as part of the recovery phase of the typhoon Ketsana response. 650 households who had lost their homes were supported through cash grants to rebuild storm/flood resistant houses. A technical consultant was hired to support a national organisation to organise trainings on safe housing, develop house designs and supervise the construction of houses.
|Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers||Vietnam||2009||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||A.31|
|Sphere Project Global Standards, 2011||2011||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2010 (B.01)||Summary: The third revision of the Sphere Handbook was released in 2011. It built upon the previous two editions and |
contained a section on “Minimum Standards in Shelter, Settlement and Non-Food Items”. This chapter is the
closest there is to consensus in humanitarian sheltering practices, and is available for download free of charge
|Advocacy / legal, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||-n/a-||2011||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2010||B.1|
|USA, 1906, Earthquake||1906||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010 (B.02)||Emergency: San Francisco earthquake and fire |
Summary: Following the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, shelter was initially provided in tents and with the distribution of household items. Formal camps were established and cottages built, which people living in them were allowed to rent and purchase at a subsidised rate. Reconstruction for some households was supported through a system of grants and loans.
|Household items, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Support for host families, Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Loans, Site planning, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||United States||1906||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2010||B.2|
|Afghanistan, 2012, Conflict||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.01)||Emergency: Conflict returns |
Summary: This project addressed the poor living conditions of recent refugee-returnees, IDPs and host families through the construction of 295 semi-permanent shelters with household latrines and hygiene promotion. Cash grants gave beneficiaries an active role in the project and allowed the organisation’s staff to spend more time with the community rather than managing contractors. The pilot phase of the project was successful and was scaled up to target a further 2,075 households.
|Construction materials, Support for host families, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Infrastructure, Training||Afghanistan||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.1|
|Burkina Faso, 2012, Conflict||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.02)||Emergency: Férério Refugee Camp, Oudalan Province |
Summary: This project provided temporary shelters for nomadic Tuareg refugees displaced from northern Mali to the Oudalan Province in Burkina Faso. Shelters were built through a self-help construction approach using traditional construction materials. Participation in the selection of the type of shelter to be provided was crucial since the refugees had already rejected other proposed solutions by other agencies. The project worked within the cultural norms of a Tuareg population where women were the main constructors of tents, and families moved their shelters according to nomadic traditions to increase spacing between shelters and tribal groups.
|Construction materials, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Cash / vouchers, Site planning||Burkina Faso||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.2|
|Colombia, 2010, Floods||2010||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.03)||Emergency: Department of Chocó |
Summary: The project used community participation to improve the overall living conditions of 80 families who were struggling to survive following flooding. It supported a total of 5,527 people in surrounding villages with disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities. Stilt construction was used to build 80 new houses and a 2.5m high, 1.1km long footbridge. Disaster preparedness activities, first aid, hygiene promotion and safe construction trainings were also provided. The project is now an example, both at regional and national level, of what can be done to support riverside communities to mitigate the effects of recurrent floods.
|Housing repair and retrofitting, Advocacy / legal, Infrastructure, Training||Colombia||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.3|
|Côte d’Ivoire, 2010-2011, Conflict||2010-2011||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.04-06)||Emergency: Post-election crisis |
Overview A.4: Support for returnees by international organisations focused on rebuilding communities as well as houses. About 30 per cent of the 24,000 households whose houses had been damaged or destroyed were targeted by the coordinated interagency response. About one third of those assisted were in spontaneous sites.
|Côte d'Ivoire||2010||2011||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.4-06|
|Côte d’Ivoire, 2010-2011, Conflict||2010-2011||Conflict||2 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.04-06)||Emergency: Post-election crisis |
A.5: The lead organisation worked with three partners to provide houses for vulnerable returnees, whose house was damaged by the post-electoral crisis. The project had the goal to sustainably improve the living conditions of returned households by providing one shelter per household. At the end of the project over 1,130 houses were built or rehabilitated by one of the three partners.
A.6: This shelter intervention built 1,341 shelters, supporting participation at the household and community levels through self-help groups and shelter committees. The shelter design used abundant local resources and promoted a design well known by the beneficiary households and local builders. The goal of the project was to contribute to the return process through shelter rehabilitation for the most vulnerable households.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Advocacy / legal, Training||Côte d'Ivoire||2010||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.4-06|
|DRC, 2002, Volcano||2002||Volcano||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.07)||Emergency: Goma volcano eruption in 2002 |
Summary: This case study summarises an assessment by a major donor of the transitional shelter and recovery programming that it funded in Goma following the volcanic eruption in 2002. The assessment was conducted ten years after the initial response. The assessment found that transitional shelter did help to facilitate the transition to permanent housing, and became a base for many livelihood activities. It also found lasting impacts from both the settlements approach taken and from the supporting activities to help people in Goma to “live with risk”.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Dem. Rep. Congo||2002||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.7|
|Ethiopia (Assosa), 2011, Conflict||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.08)||Emergency: Sudan and South Sudan conflict. Bambasi camp, Assosa |
Summary: The organisation planned and built a camp for Sudanese refugees. Semi-permanent shelters were constructed by refugees, with two partner organisations providing materials, carpenters and training. Refugees were able to chose their own plot configuration and the shelters were constructed with locally procured materials.
|Construction materials, Tools, Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Site planning, Infrastructure, Training||Ethiopia||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.8|
|Ethiopia (Dollo Ado), 2012, Conflict||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.09)||Emergency: Conflict and drought in Somalia |
Summary: Four organisations built semi-permanent shelters for Somali refugees living in the camps at Dollo Ado. Each organisation set up production lines in the camps to prefabricate the components. The projects worked within the constraints of challenging logistics and very different social environments between camps. The shelter design was selected following a consultative process during which different options were shared with camp residents.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Site planning||Ethiopia||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.9|
|Haiti, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||Overview||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.10-13)||Emergency: Earthquake 2010. Rental Support Cash Grants overview. |
Overview: Early indications are that rental support cash grants have been successful. A survey of households that have completed their year of rental subsidy found that all of the respondents (90% of the total caseload) had been able to organise their own housing for the foreseeable future. None had returned to camps or moved to informal settlements.
|Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Infrastructure, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Haiti||2010||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.10-13|
|Haiti, 2010, Earthquake||2010||Earthquake||3 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.10-13)||Emergency: |
A.11: The project offered several service packages, including rental assistance, transitional shelter construction and repairs to damaged homes, to incentivise families to leave camps and find suitable housing solutions. Central to this project were life skills training, household livelihood planning, temporary health insurance and psychosocial services. Over one year, the project closed all five camps that were targeted and helped more than 1,200 families resettle.
A.12: This project worked in rural areas of Haiti beginning with an in-depth assessment of local building practices. Builders were then trained in improvements to existing construction. This was followed by building assessment and repair construction programme resulting in the construction of 500 houses to date. The overall project goal was to improve local communities’ resilience to hazards and to improve living conditions through housing improvements and construction-based economic stimulus.
A.13: The organisation used the Participatory Approach for Safe Shelter Awareness (PASSA) process to support the community make the transition to neighbourhood recovery. A range of participatory activities were carried out to decide both a comprehensive community plan for reconstruction, and a detailed list of related programme activities by the organisation. The identification of problems and solutions enabled the community to make plans for their own long-term recovery activities.
|Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Infrastructure, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Haiti||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.10-13|
|Japan, 2011, Earthquake/Tsunami||2011||Earthquake/Tsunami||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.14)||Emergency: Earthquake and Tsunami |
Summary: This project provided cash assistance to repair 150 houses after the tsunami in Japan. It was mainly targeted at families unable to apply for the government’s Emergency Repair Aid and for those who required further assistance on top of the government’s aid package. The project provided an information and support centre with outreach to support 1155 households. This service provided information to those who had difficulty in accessing other sources of information, primarily the elderly or people living alone.
|Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Structural assessment||Japan||2011||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.14|
|Kenya-Dadaab, 2011, Conflict||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.15)||Emergency: July 2011 famine and continuing conflict |
Summary: Following a massive influx of Somali refugees to the camps at Dadaab in Kenya, two new camps were planned and built. Camp services were set-up and a refugee-led committee was established to manage the camps. Planning was for 200,000 people, but poor security and lack of government recognition meant that far fewer people settled at the sites. The majority of families were sheltered in tents. Later shelters were built with plastic sheet on timber frames. As families became established, many built their own structures. After some initial construction, use of Interlocking Stabilised Soil Blocks (ISSB) was prohibited by the government.
|Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Site planning, Infrastructure||Kenya||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.15|
|Lebanon, 2007, Conflict||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.16)||Emergency: Palestinian refugees |
Summary: The organisation ran a series of projects since 2005 to improve the shelter standards of Palestinian refugees living in “gatherings”. Structured repairs focusing on roofs were conducted with associated water and sanitation improvements. Eight gatherings in the Saida area were targeted with around 25 per cent of the shelters repaired. The organisation also carried out other rehabilitations in other parts of Lebanon during the same period. Many of the initial lessons learnt were adopted by other organisations in subsequent responses.
|Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Structural assessment||Lebanon||2007||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.16|
|Lebanon, 2011, Conflict||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.17)||Emergency: Syrian conflict |
Summary: This project rehabilitated houses where people fleeing from Syria were hosted. It also made quick repairs to winterise dwellings and distributed non-food items, including stoves and fuel. Particular care was taken with targetting of affected populations through detailed social and structural assessments of hosting arrangements. Assessments were followed by phased cash payments for host families to make repairs. As refugee numbers continued to rise, the organisation conducted pilot cash for rent and transitional shelter construction projects.
|Support for host families, Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Structural assessment||Lebanon||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.17|
|Madagascar, 2012, Cyclone||2012||Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.18)||Emergency: Intense tropical storm Giovanna and moderate tropical storm Irina |
Summary: This project formed community committees to select beneficiaries and monitor the building of 599 houses in rural locations. Close monitoring by beneficiaries allowed a degree of remote management of the project to improve quality in a difficult to access area. The project aimed to build safer shelters using local materials.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Madagascar||2012||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.18|
|Nicaragua, 2007, Hurricane||2007||Hurricane||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.19)||Emergency: Hurricane Felix |
Summary: This project was implemented in the context of a poorly funded response and recovery operations for the 2007 hurricane in Nicaragua. The organisation chose to focus its limited budget on providing improved shelter conditions for nearly the entire population of one of the most affected villages. The project included physically re-planning the settlement, building 150 new core houses, and training community leaders and work crews.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Site planning, Training||Nicaragua||2007||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.19|
|Pakistan, 2010, Floods||2010||Floods||2 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.20-21)||Emergency: 2010 Floods |
A.20: The organisation established national coordination across 7 provinces in response to large scale floods, with the purpose of addressing gaps and increasing the effectiveness of the humanitarian response. The organisation established a national coordination team that managed a wide range of issues through a system of Strategic Advisory Groups (SAGs) and Technical Working Groups (TWIGs). It also appointed different organisations as lead coordinators in the different provinces. District level coordination proved difficult and slow to establish, but lessons were leant for the following 2011–2012 floods.
A.21: The project provided shelter, food security and disaster resilience assistance to flood-affected communities in Sindh province. 5,350 families were provided with materials, labour and trainings to enable households to rebuild their shelters. The project design was designed on community-based Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) principles, but the constraints of a short project timescale and high target numbers made this challenging.
|Tools, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Advocacy / legal, Infrastructure, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Pakistan||2010||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.20-21|
|Pakistan, 2011, Floods||2011||Floods||2 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.22-23)||Emergency: 2011 Floods |
A.22: The organisation worked with 27 implementing partners to deliver shelter at scale. The project provided cash to households to build their own shelters. It aimed to increase the resilience of communities by increasing the quality of technical input, incorporating more disaster risk reduction (DRR) components, monitoring to ensure compliance, and supporting the construction of safer shelters to catalyse self-recovery. This was achieved through knowledge and cash transfers to enable households to make choices based on their needs and priorities.
A.23: The organisation provided research, training, assessment, design, technical assistance and construction monitoring and mentoring support to 7,500 households (to an additional 17,500 later) following the 2011 floods. Based on the organisation’s experience in disaster-affected areas since the 2005 earthquake, the project focused on developing improved vernacular construction through the use of low-cost sustainable building materials and training. The organisation provided technical guidance based on its programme “Build Back Safer with Vernacular Methodologies”, leading to stronger and safer structures that have withstood hazards.
|Core housing / progressive shelter, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Advocacy / legal, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Pakistan||2011||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.22-23|
|Peru, 2012, Floods||2012||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.24)||Emergency: Floods and landslides |
Summary: Tents and non-food items were provided to families who had lost their homes as a result of landslides. The tents and family kits were shipped into the country from international pre-positioning locations in coordination with the local disaster management authorities. The entire distribution project lasted 6 weeks.
|Household items, Tools, Emergency shelter, Training||Peru||2012||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.24|
|Philippines, 2011, Cyclone||2011||Cyclone||Overview||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.25-27)||Emergency: Tropical Storm Washi (Sendong) |
Overview: In late 2011, over 39,000 houses were damaged and over 400,000 people were displaced by winds, floods and landslides following tropical storm Washi (also known as Sendong). Collective centres were established and non-food items were distributed in the first phase of the response.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Housing repair and retrofitting, Advocacy / legal, Site planning, Infrastructure, Training||Philippines||2011||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.25-27|
|Philippines, 2011, Cyclone||2011||Cyclone||2 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.25-27)||Emergency: Tropical Storm Washi (Sendong) |
A.26: The organisation implemented an urban transitional settlement programme building 1,823 transitional shelters. Many complex issues arose, including land and property rights, zoning issues, high-risk settlements and providing shelter solutions to those without land rights. This programme demonstrated the importance of and challenges to acquiring land for transitional settlements.
A.27: The organisation distributed 5,000 shelter repair kits and built 6,000 housing units for displaced families. It built the houses with services on new relocation sites using contractors, volunteers and working with partners. It deployed three construction mobilisation units for the repair and restoration of houses and communities damaged by the storm.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Housing repair and retrofitting, Advocacy / legal, Site planning, Infrastructure, Training||Philippines||2011||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.25-27|
|Somalia, 2011, Conflict||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.28)||Emergency: July 2011 Famine and Continuing conflict |
Summary: The Tri-Cluster project is a coordinated group of 16 projects implemented by 14 partners across the sectors of shelter, WASH and health. Zona K in Magadishu was chosen as the target area as it had the densest concentration of IDPs and was the least likely IDP settlement to be evicted once Mogadishu stabilised and developed. The project goal was to improve the protection for displaced people living in Zona K through improved settlement planning and the provision of integrated services from multiple sectors.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Site planning, Infrastructure||Somalia||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.28|
|South Sudan, 2011, Conflict||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.29)||Emergency: Post-war reconstruction |
Summary: The project supported reintegration of returnees. It constructed 8,300 shelters on new land plots provided by the government. Basic urban services such as school buildings and boreholes, were constructed through parallel programmes. Two shelter designs were employed: bamboo and thatched-roof shelters (6,800) that could be built quickly to respond to large-scale returns and compressed mud block shelters with CGI sheet roofs (1,500) to provide more durable structures.
|Construction materials, Core housing / progressive shelter, Site planning, Infrastructure, Training||South Sudan||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.29|
|Thailand, 2011, Floods||2011||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.30)||Emergency: 2011 Floods |
Summary: During the 2011 floods in Thailand, social media became a crucial tool for information-sharing and decision-making, both for those affected by the floods and for agencies responding to needs.
|Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Thailand||2011||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.30|
|Tunisia, 2011, Conflict||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.31)||Emergency: Conflict in Libya |
Summary: A transit camp was established to assist refugees and migrants fleeing the conflict in Libya. The camp was rapidly established in partnership with the Tunisian authorities and housed a population with more than 60 nationalities mostly for only short periods. The camp management worked closely with organisations providing support for the repatriation of displaced people to ensure that people had a smooth transit from the camp to return locations.
|Household items, Emergency shelter||Tunisia||2011||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.31|
|USA, 1871, Fire||1871||Fire||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (A.32)||Emergency: Great Chicago Fire |
Summary: The response included non-food item distribution, the building of barracks and one-room shelter construction. The response was administered by the Chicago Relief and Aid Society, a voluntary body, first established with the aim of supporting the poor in areas that the local authorities could not or would not support. The Society used a “scientific charity” method, employing paid professionals to carry out the policies of the executive board, emphasising the importance of public health issues and encouraging self-reliance amongst recipients of aid.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Rental support, Cash / vouchers, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||United States||1871||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||A.32|
|The History of Three Point Five Square Metres, 2013||2013||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (B.01)||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.||Site planning, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||-n/a-||2013||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||B.1|
|Bankers vs. Builders, 2013||2013||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (B.02)||The professionalisation of the shelter sector as a part of humanitarian assistance is often dated to the early 1970s and the work of researchers-cum-practitioners like Fred Cuny and Ian Davis1. These grand doyens of shelter after disasters helped establish a number of principles for the sector that remain true today.||Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Loans, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||-n/a-||2013||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||B.2|
|Livestock Sheltering in Humanitarian Situations, 2013||2013||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (B.03)||Livestock have been sheltered within household infrastructure for hundreds of years. Vernacular buildings in many less developed countries still contain provision for livestock. Fences and bushes within a household plot of land are also traditionally used to shelter livestock. For example in Gujarat, India, thorny fences of Acacia Arabica are used to protect the buffaloes. In Sri Lanka, fences of wood and wire are used alongside sheds made of wood or bamboo, roofed with grass or leaves.||Site planning, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||-n/a-||2013||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||B.3|
|A Reflection on the Importance of Settlements, 2013||2013||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2011-2012 (B.04)||The convergence of disasters and urban areas has propelled the need to address “settlements” as an important component of disaster assistance. But, urban areas are complex physical and social environments which have forced a considerable increase in the complexity of our humanitarian response and the difficulty of recovering after the disaster. Shelter and Settlements are inextricably linked and can no longer be treated as separate units or responses, but must be managed as a single, indivisible programme undertaking.||Site planning, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||-n/a-||2013||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2011-2012||B.4|
|Central African Republic, 2013, Conflict||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.01)||Emergency: Internal conflict. |
Summary: In response to security issues for returning IDPs, a women’s training centre was converted into “Ben-Zvi Night Shelter” – a secure site with communal shelter for people worried about night-time security. The facility was open from 6pm to 6am in an area where security was maintained by the presence of international peacekeeping troops.
|Emergency shelter||Central African Rep.||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.1|
|Colombia, 2011, Floods||2011||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.02)||Emergency: Recurrent flooding. |
Summary: This project supported the entire community of Doña Ana to voluntarily resettle to a new location, due to severe annual flooding. The project was implemented by a consortium which included a private foundation, public bodies and aid organisations. The project involved community-led planning and settlement design and construction, in order to reinforce the community’s resilience and capacity to develop sustainable living solutions in their new village. In total, 148 families were supported with new houses and infrastructure. Furthermore, the project may serve as a model for similar future interventions.
|Core housing / progressive shelter, Advocacy / legal, Site planning, Infrastructure, Training||Colombia||2011||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.2|
|Hurricane Sandy, 2012, Hurricane||2012||Hurricane||Overview||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.03)||Emergency: Hurricane Sandy |
Overview: Hurricane Sandy provides a clear example of how a catastrophe can achieve blanket news coverage across the world, and yet for some countries be a ‘silent’ disaster.
|United States||2012||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.3|
|Cuba, 2012, Hurricane||2012||Hurricane||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.04)||Emergency: Hurricane Sandy |
Summary: Two organisations delivered a standardised roofing kit to families whose homes had been damaged. The organisations, in partnership with the government, provided materials tailored to the needs of each household. Organisation A provided technical assistance, trainings on DRR and a WASH component, whilst Organisation B implemented a Participatory Approach for Safe Shelter Awareness which included construction workshops.
|Household items, Construction materials, Tools, Support for host families, Housing repair and retrofitting, Training, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Cuba||2012||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.4|
|Dominican Republic, 2012, Hurricane||2012||Hurricane||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.05)||Emergency: Hurricane Sandy |
Summary: An integrated early recovery project which combined a shelter response with WASH assistance and risk-reduction components. With the objective of assisting the most vulnerable families, NFIs and tailored shelter-repair kits were distributed through vouchers redeemed at local suppliers. Technical assistance and training was provided to communities and local craftsmen to improve disasterresistant construction techniques.
|Household items, Construction materials, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Training, Structural assessment||Dominican Rep.||2012||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.5|
|Haiti, 2012, Hurricane||2012||Hurricane||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.06)||Emergency: Hurricane Sandy |
Summary: Following an initial emergency response, the project distributed conditional cash grants and technical supervision to support beneficiaries in the construction or repair of houses. Builders were trained in Improved Vernacular Construction (IVC) techniques, using local materials.
|Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Training, Structural assessment||Haiti||2012||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.6|
|Fiji, 2012, Tropical Cyclone||2012||Tropical Cyclone||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.07)||Emergency: Tropical Cyclone Evan, Fiji. |
Summary: Provision of T-shelters for families living in informal settlements whose shelters had been completely destroyed by the cyclone. Beneficiaries were trained in construction techniques and provided labour. T-shelters had to conform to government specifications as permanent housing in informal settlements is illegal, though the construction work opened the door to discussions on housing rights for the poor.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Advocacy / legal, Training||Fiji||2012||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.7|
|Syria conflict, 2011, Conflict||2011||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.08)||Emergency: Syria conflict |
Overview: Ongoing conflict in Syria since March 2011, and in Iraq since June 2014, has led to rising displacement of Syrians and Iraqis. Many people have been displaced more than once as the pattern of conflict has changed. Currently there are 6.5 million people displaced internally in Syria, 1.8 million people displaced internally in Iraq, and 3 million refugees spread primarily across Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and Turkey with smaller numbers in North Africa, the Gulf states and Europe (figures as of October 2014).
|Syrian Arab Republic||2011||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.8|
|Iraq (KR-I), 2013, Conflict||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.09)||Emergency: Syria crisis, refugees in Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KR-I), Iraq. |
Summary: Improved living conditions for 500 households through a voucher assistance project to facilitate repairs and maintenance activities.
|Cash / vouchers||Iraq||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.9|
|Jordan, 2013, Conflict||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.10)||Emergency: Syria crisis, refugees in Jordan. |
Summary: Azraq camp was constructed with 13,500 T-shelter units to accommodate 67,000 refugees in response to protracted displacement. T-shelters are interlocking steel structures, designed to maximise privacy and protect against severe weather conditions. They can be disassembled, transported and reassembled.
|Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Site planning||Jordan||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.10|
|Jordan, 2013, Conflict||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.11)||Emergency: Syria crisis, refugees in Jordan. |
Summary: The upgrading programme is made up of several projects, financed by different donors, aiming to increase the number of rental properties available to refugees by supporting landlords to complete unfinished housing units. Landlords are given a conditional cash grant to pay for the construction, paid in advance, which covers a rental period for 12-18 months for a refugee family.
|Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Advocacy / legal||Jordan||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.11|
|Jordan, 2014, Conflict||2014||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.12)||Emergency: Syria crisis, refugees in Jordan. |
Summary: When families in Zaatari refugee camp started to receive pre-fabricated container shelters, a stockpile of used tents began to build up. A tent-recycling project was developed to repair and repackage used tents for new arrivals. Recycling, instead of destroying or giving away the used tents, generated an estimated saving of around US$ 3,000,000 (US$ 600 per tent). Tent components that are too damaged to be re-used for shelters have been used for other purposes.
|Emergency shelter||Jordan||2014||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.12|
|Lebanon, 2012, Conflict||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.13)||Emergency: Syria crisis, refugees in Lebanon. |
Summary: After carrying out minor rehabilitation activities in 2012, the organisation decided to respond to a huge increase in shelter needs, by developing a Sealing-off Kit (SOK) for distribution. The kits enabled beneficiaries to make rapid, emergency improvements to their shelters, such as adding missing doors and windows, whilst waiting for more substantial assistance. The organisation distributed up to 500 kits (for 3,000 people) per week.
|Construction materials, Tools, Emergency shelter||Lebanon||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.13|
|Lebanon, 2012, Conflict||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.14)||Emergency: Syria crisis, refugees in Lebanon. |
Summary: Several different assistance packages made up a larger programme, aimed at improving the living conditions of the most vulnerable Syrian and Lebanese families living in poorest quality shelter. The programme was a multi-sector response, integrating WASH and Child Protection, using multiple modalities, such as NFI distribution, cash and vouchers.
|Household items, Construction materials, Emergency shelter, Rental support, Housing repair and retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Site planning||Lebanon||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.14|
|Lebanon, 2013, Conflict||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.15)||Emergency: Syria crisis, refugees in Lebanon. |
Summary: The main organisation aimed to increase overall shelter capacity by paying for the conversion of large buildings into collective centres, some of which were already being squatted by refugee families. Since the buildings had been used previously as chicken farms, they had to be disinfected and re-developed to meet minimum shelter standards. Landlords waived rent to the value of the conversion costs, and contracts will be renegotiated once the period of free rent comes to an end.
|Emergency shelter, Housing repair and retrofitting||Lebanon||2013||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.15|
|Myanmar, 2012, Conflict||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.16)||Emergency: Inter-communal violence in Rakhine |
Summary: The project provided temporary shelter to IDPs displaced by conflict until a durable solution could be reached. Shelter was provided in the form of collective shelters, each housing eight families (8-unit buildings) with associated IDP camp infrastructure. The shelters were constructed by both the main organisation (also the Cluster Lead), its partners in the Shelter Cluster, and the government. Beyond providing temporary shelter, the Shelter Cluster continues to advocate strongly for government provision of durable housing options.
|Emergency shelter, Site planning, Infrastructure||Myanmar||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.16|
|Nigeria, 2012, Floods||2012||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.17)||Emergency: Floods |
Summary: The project aimed to support people affected by flooding, reducing their shelter and settlement vulnerabilities. Emergency shelter/NFI kits were distributed followed by a recovery project to support families with rebuilding their shelters using safer construction techniques.
|Household items, Core housing / progressive shelter, Training||Nigeria||2012||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.17|
|Pakistan, 2012, Floods||2012||Floods||3 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.18-21)||Emergency: Recurrent flooding |
Overview: Since 2010, annual monsoon rains have been extreme, unpredictable, and unprecedented in recent memory. Intensive agriculture and deforestation, together with poor building practices have greatly increased the risk of flooding and the vulnerability of millions of people.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Site planning, Training||Pakistan||2012||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.18-21|
|Pakistan, 2010-2014, Floods||2010-2014||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.18-21)||Emergency: 2012 floods. |
A.19: Flood-affected families were supported with 5,167 transitional shelters in areas where the organisation was already present. The shelters conformed to Sphere standards and were built in three rounds of construction. They were quick to build and incorporated key DRR elements. Village site-planning was introduced in the third phase of the project.
A.20: The project was a continuation of the previous One Room Shelter (ORS) programme, responding to flooding in 2010 and 2011 (see Shelter Projects 2010, A.24 and Shelter Projects 2011-2012, A.22). While the project followed a similar methodology in terms of construction and DRR training, after the 2012 floods there was a much greater emphasis placed on feedback mechanisms.
A.21: The project provided 1,000 vulnerable families with safe, resilient and locally adaptable shelter. The shelters were built with some materials and skilled labour provided by the organisation, and with beneficiaries providing some unskilled labour and salvaged or no-cost materials. Community members not receiving direct shelter assistance were included in the DRR trainings for mapping hazards and improving shelter construction techniques.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Cash / vouchers, Site planning, Training||Pakistan||2010||2014||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.18-21|
|Philippines, 2012, Typhoon||2012||Typhoon||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.22)||Emergency: Typhoon Bopha. |
Summary: Families were supported to rebuild shelters with materials they salvaged (mostly coco lumber) and materials provided by the organisation (roofing materials and strapping). The organisation paid carpenters to build the main structures after receiving training in safe construction techniques. A focus on community participation and low-cost materials maximised the project outputs.
|Household items, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Training||Philippines||2012||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.22|
|Philippines, 2013, Typhoon||2013||Typhoon||Overview||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.23-25)||Emergency: Typhoon Haiyan |
Overview: Typhoon Haiyan (locally known as Yolanda) was one of the largest typhoons ever to make landfall, and the deadliest in the history of the Philippines. It brought unprecedented levels of damage to a vast area of the country, affecting more than 10% of the population.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Training||Philippines||2013||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.23-25|
|Philippines, 2013, Typhoon||2013||Typhoon||2 Case studies||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.23-25)||Emergency: Typhoon Haiyan |
A.24: The project addressed the need for temporary shelter in the municipalities of Tanauan, Santa Fe and Tacloban through the provision of four types of shelter kit based on the degree of damage to a house. The project prioritised households living in inadequate shelter conditions and with low self-recovery capacity. The organisation supported self-recovery through “Build Back Safer” trainings conducted before shelter kit distributions.
A.25: The main organisation, in collaboration with a local implementing partner, supported the self-recovery of those affected by Haiyan through the provision of direct cash grants, vouchers for quality-controlled materials, and training and guidance in DRR techniques. The two organisations lobbied the government to allow assistance to families waiting to be relocated who were living in the “No Build Zone” (NBZ). Relocation is likely to take 1-2 years.
|Household items, Construction materials, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Training||Philippines||2013||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.23-25|
|South Sudan, 2012, Conflict||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.26)||Emergency: Conflict in Blue Nile state (Sudan). Refugees in South-Sudan. |
Summary: In order to improve the quality of shelter available to refugees in Kaya refugee camp, the lead agency and its implementing partner built 3,747 15m2 shelters. The shelters were designed with flexibility in mind, allowing for later upgrading to CGI roofing and expansion or extension by the beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were given training in construction techniques. Problems with sourcing construction materials meant that construction was delayed.
|Transitional shelter / T-shelter||South Sudan||2012||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.26|
|Portugal, 1755, Earthquake||1755||Earthquake||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (A.27)||Emergency: 1755 Earthquake, Tsunami and Fire, Lisbon, Portugal. |
Summary: 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.
|Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter / T-shelter, Core housing / progressive shelter, Site planning, Infrastructure, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||Portugal||1755||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||A.27|
|The importance of assessment in Shelter, 2014||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (B.01)||This article describes how assessments have been used to inform humanitarian Shelter programming and support inter-agency coordination, with examples from different countries.||Guidelines / materials /mass communications||-n/a-||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||B.1|
|Evaluating cash-for-rent subsidies, 2014||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (B.02)||In the last decade or so, the use of cash as a modality in humanitarian interventions has become increasingly prevalent. Today it takes on many diverse forms, from direct, “unconditional” cash transfers to different forms of conditional payments such as vouchers, cash-for-work, or cash-for-rent (see Shelter Projects 2011-2012, B.2).||Rental support, Cash / vouchers||-n/a-||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||B.2|
|Security of tenure and humanitarian shelter, 2014||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (B.03)||In recent years the humanitarian community has made progress in better orientating emergency shelter toward addressing the needs of the most vulnerable conflict- and disaster-affected populations. During this time, increased attention has been devoted to the different bases upon which beneficiaries of humanitarian shelter assistance occupy their homes, (otherwise known as ‘tenure’).||Advocacy / legal, Guidelines / materials /mass communications||-n/a-||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||B.3|
|Supporting host families as shelter options, 2014||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (B.04)||The vast majority of the people left homeless after a crisis, before they are assisted by local governments and humanitarian actors, frequently stay with friends, relatives and even strangers, in order to cope. The assistance provided by generous individuals and families who open their homes and hearts to stranded individuals has come to be known as host family support. Host family support is rooted in the willingness of people, whether compelled by family, friendship or community ties, or simply compassion for others, to help those in need. Hosted households rarely pay for support they receive; however, when they do they usually pay at a discounted rate.||Support for host families||-n/a-||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||B.4|
|Urban settings, 2014||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014 (B.05)||Whether people are displaced or non-displaced as a result of a disaster or conflict is one of the fundamental ways in which humanitarian actors have sought to frame methods of Shelter response for disaster-affected populations. In the Sphere Project and many other key sectoral guidelines, the main categories of settlement typologies cascade down from this initial division, and continued displacement can be an indicator of vulnerability, and a key to understanding how far from durable shelter a disasteraffected household might be.||Urban||-n/a-||2014||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2013-2014||B.5|
|Myanmar, 2013-2016, Complex/Multiple||2013-2016||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.1)||Multiple crises: Internal conflict in Kachin/Northern Shan states (2011-ongoing), inter-communal violence in Rakhine state (Jun-Oct 2012), and Cyclone Komen floods (Aug-Dec 2015) |
Summary: The Shelter/NFI/CCCM Cluster in Myanmar has provided – and continues to support – coordination of shelter and CCCM agencies at national and sub-national level through a decentralized approach, since January 2013. The national level provided overall direction, Information Management support and liaised with national authorities, donors and the Humanitarian Country Team, as well as with the Global Shelter and CCCM Clusters; two sub-national clusters were established for operational response. The overall goals were to provide emergency shelter and to seek durable solutions for populations affected by violence and disasters. This case study focuses on the coordination structures and how they evolved over time.
|Coordination, Technical Assistance, Advocacy, Training||Myanmar||2013||2016||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.1|
|Myanmar, 2014-2016, Conflict||2014-2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.2)|| Crisis: Inter-communal violence, Rakhine, 2012 |
Summary: This was a beneficiary-led, cash-based, project that allowed families displaced due to inter-communal violence to vacate their temporary shelter and rebuild their houses. The project enabled the construction of 4,737 houses for a marginalized group in a highly volatile environment, where some stakeholders were keen to use a contractor-driven approach. In fact, the more discreet owner-driven methodology, used in this project, proved highly effective.
|Individual housing, Cash assistance, Advocacy, Community participation, Protection||Myanmar||2014||2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.2|
|Nepal, 2015, Earthquake||2015||Earthquake||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.3)|| Crisis: Nepal earthquakes, 25 April and 12 May 2015 |
Summary: Two major earthquakes struck Nepal in April and May 2015, affecting around 6 million people. The government called for humanitarian assistance and the international community supported the response in the 14 most-affected districts, through three main phases: emergency relief, supporting self-recovery, and winterization. After the initial phase, characterized mainly by in-kind distributions, cash-based assistance became the preferred modality for this response.
|Nepal||2015||Natural disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.3|
|Nepal, 2015, Earthquake||2015||Earthquake||4 case studies||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.3-A.7)|| Crisis: Nepal earthquakes, 25 April and 12 May 2015 |
A.4: Case study summary: The Nepal Shelter Cluster Coordination Team organized a system of district-level coordination focal points from operational, cluster partner agencies. These focal points were able to liaise with local authorities, private sector, and implementing partners on issues unique to that geographic area, while communicating and influencing strategic information deriving from policies developed at the national level.
A.5 Case study summary: The project provided emergency shelter supplies to help earthquake-affected households establish temporary shelters, and/or make urgent repairs to their house, with high-quality and durable materials, before the beginning of the monsoon season. The coordination of shelter and WASH relief distributions, and the integration of a gender sensitive approach to the emergency response, enabled a comprehensive and context sensitive delivery of essential household NFIs, integrated to address challenges for women and girls.
A.6 Case study summary: The project targeted more than 5,000 families – whose houses had been damaged or destroyed – with the distribution of transitional shelter kits to make basic repairs, or build a temporary shelter. Training was provided to demonstrate the design of a suitable shelter that could be constructed with the supplied materials. In so doing, the project aimed at facilitating the early start of people’s self-recovery.
A.7 Case study summary: The project provided winterization support in high and remote areas to 15,480 vulnerable and marginalized households in five of the worst affected districts, through the delivery of e-vouchers for winter and shelter enhancement, cash grants for shelter enhancement and winterization kits (clothing and shelter materials).
A.4: Coordination, Emergency shelter, Housing repair / retrofitting, Cash assistance, NFI distribution, Winterization.
A.5: Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter, NFI distribution, Training, Gender mainstreaming, GBV risk mitigation, Disaster Risk Reduction, Community participation.
A.6: Transitional shelter, Distribution, Community participation, Coordination, Training.
A.7: Winterization, Cash / vouchers, NFI distribution, Shelter upgrades, Protection
|Nepal||2015||2016||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.3-A.7|
|Philippines, 2013, Typhoon Haiyan||2013||Typhoon||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.8)|| Crisis: Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda), 8 November 2013 |
Summary: Super Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) made landfall on 8 November 2013 and was one of the largest typhoons ever recorded. While the main government response consisted of subsidies for housing reconstruction or repair, humanitarian agencies used a range of approaches which included cash- or voucher-based interventions, but also training and construction of transitional, core or permanent shelters. Particular issues in this response included the lack of support for secure tenure, the lifespan of transitional shelter solutions and the poor quality control, particularly in regards to coco-lumber.
|Philippines||2013||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.8|
|Philippines, 2013-2017, Typhoon Haiyan||2013-2017||Typhoon||5 case studies||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.8-A.13)|| Crisis: Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda), 8 November 2013 |
A.9 Case study summary: This multi-year project included an emergency phase, followed by transitional and recovery phases. In the first phase, CGI sheets and cash grants were provided for shelter repair, and core shelters were constructed with latrines. In the second phase, a participatory approach was used to strengthen community resilience and safer construction practices, within an integrated programme, which provided opportunities for people to take ownership on cross-cutting issues.
A.10 Case study summary: The organisation built 4,462 “core shelters” to a standard design with accompanying sanitation in 18 months, using local labour and a highly systematized approach. The project also included a significant training component. The case study highlights detailed learnings related to construction management for an agency-led construction project, working with the community and local authorities.
A.11 Case study summary: This was a large-scale programme, using a “Debris to Shelter” approach, to support typhoon affected households to repair or rebuild their damaged or destroyed homes. Almost 20 million board-feet of lumber were salvaged, corresponding to an estimated number of almost one million trees. Through 97 vendors in all affected areas, lumber was provided for more than 62,000 shelter interventions. Disaster Risk Reduction and Build Back Safer trainings were given to local carpenters and shelter beneficiaries, promoting safer construction against future disasters.
A.12 case study summary: The shelter programme spanned from relief to recovery within an inter-sectoral response. It assisted people across a wide geographical area, with activities such as: material distribution (shelter relief items, NFI kits and shelter recovery materials), transitional shelter and latrine construction, community awareness raising, technical assistance and certified training for carpenters.
A.13 case study summary: This community-led resilient recovery programme supported remote indigenous communities on sectors including shelter, infrastructure, livelihoods, WASH and DRR. The projects adopted an integrated approach, taking shelter as an entry point for area-based programming and then expanding to a broader programme of community resilience-building. The different offices were given flexibility on implementation within a common principle of maximizing communities’ agency. Communities were allowed to manage their own funds, planning and implementation of the activities.
A.9: Multi-phase, Core shelters, Sanitation, Training, Community participation
A.10: Core housing, NFI distribution, Training, Disaster Risk Reduction, Community participation
A.11: Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter, Procurement and logistics, Local materials, Training.
A.12: Emergency shelter, Transitional shelter, NFI distribution, Multisectoral, Training, Community participation.
A.13: Multi-sectoral, Resilience building, Core houses, Community participation.
|Philippines||2013||2017||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.8-A.13|
|Vanuatu, 2015, Tropical cyclone Pam||2015||Cyclone||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.14)|| Crisis: Tropical Cyclone Pam, Vanuatu, 13 March 2015 |
Summary: On 13 March 2015, Category 5 Tropical Cyclone Pam struck the archipelago of Vanuatu. The government and various national and international organisations first responded with the delivery of emergency shelter items: tarpaulins, shelter tool kits and kitchen sets. The response then moved to supporting self-recovery and strengthening resilience through safe shelter awareness and fixing kits. The Shelter Cluster, activated for the first time in Vanuatu for this response, then remained active for preparedness as part of the Vanuatu clusters platform.
|Vanuatu||2015||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.14|
|Fiji, 2016, Tropical cyclone Winston||2016||Natural disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.15)|| Crisis: Tropical Cyclone Winston, Fiji, 20 February 2016 |
Summary: Tropical Cyclone Winston hit Fiji on 20 February 2016. The emergency shelter response started with the distribution of shelter items by the government and various national and international organisations. The government response then moved to the dispersal of vouchers to access selected construction materials through hardware shops. Humanitarian agencies focused on training carpenters and homebuilders. The Shelter Cluster was re-activated, to help the coordination of the 30 organisations that contributed to the shelter response and the development of the Build Back Safer framework. Following the response, the government institutionalized the cluster system as a permanent mechanism for disaster management.
|Fiji||2016||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.15|
|Benin, 2010-2011, Floods||2010-2011||Floods||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.16)|| Crisis: Benin Floods, September 2010 |
Summary: This project assisted over 5,000 flood-affected households in two phases, with a specific focus on reducing vulnerabilities of women and girls. In the emergency phase, shelter repair kits were distributed to support returns and host families, along with unconditional cash grants. The longer-term recovery phase involved a range of multi-sectoral interventions to support returnees to rebuild their villages, including cash for work, technical training on Build Back Safer, and dissemination of key messages on land tenure, WASH activities and awareness of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) issues.
|Emergency shelter, Host family support, Cash assistance, NFI distribution, Gender mainstreaming, GBV prevention and risk mitigation||Benin||2010||2011||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.16|
|DRC, 2008-2016, Complex/Multiple||2008-2016||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.17)|| Crisis: Two decades long and ongoing |
Summary: Since 2008, the NFI sector in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has undergone a dramatic transformation from a response strategy dominated by in-kind distribution of basic household, personal and hygiene items, to the use of cash-based vouchers. The NFI voucher fair approach has allowed families to select items based on their own priorities, while also supporting local economies. By 2013, over 50% of all NFI beneficiaries in DRC were assisted using the NFI voucher fair approach. Since the first pilots in late 2008, local and international humanitarian actors have reached over 790,000 families – nearly 4 million people – using this approach.
|Non-food items, NFI voucher fairs, NFI distribution||Dem. Rep. Congo||2008||2016||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.17|
|Nigeria, 2015-2016, Conflict||2015-2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.18)|| Crisis: Conflict (Boko Haram insurgency), 2014-ongoing |
Summary: The project built emergency and reinforced shelters for over 3,000 internally displaced households across ten sites, using a common design that took into account the needs of different family sizes, cultural practices, as well as climate considerations. The shelter project was part of a broader coordinated effort of the humanitarian community to meet minimum standards while decongesting existing sites, particularly schools.
|Emergency shelter, Site planning, Collective centres, Infrastructure, Protection||Nigeria||2015||2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.18|
|Malawi, 2015, Floods||2015||Floods||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.19)|| Crisis: Malawi flood, January 2015 |
Summary: The floods in 2015 led to displacement and widespread damage to housing in the affected areas. Displacement sites were set up in public buildings (such as schools) during the emergency phase, and assistance was provided primarily in these sites. After the first few months, the focus shifted towards relocation and supporting return to IDPs’ places of origin, in order to enable collective centres to go back to their functions and facilitate early recovery. According to data reported to the Shelter Cluster, emergency shelter support consisted mainly of distribution of tents and tarpaulins, while repairs assistance was primarily in the form of tool kits and/or materials, coupled with trainings.
|Malawi||2015||Natural disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.19|
|Malawi, 2015, Floods||2015||Floods||2 case studies||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.19-A.21)|| Crisis: Malawi flood, January 2015 |
A.20 Case study summary: This project had a relief-oriented and a recovery-oriented outcome objective. Through the provision of tents and shelter-related NFIs, it aimed to meet immediate shelter needs and enabled affected households to move out of gender-segregated collective centres, supporting return and easing overcrowding. In order to support early recovery, tarpaulins and fixing kits were distributed to build or repair shelters, coupled with basic training and tools to assist with reconstruction or earning a livelihood.
A.21 Case study summary: The programme aimed to assist flood-affected people to return to their homes, through the repair and reconstruction of houses. This was done through the supply of tools, materials and technical training. It also included training and information sharing to the community on more durable and resilient housing-construction methods.
A.20: Emergency shelter, NFI distribution, Early recovery, GBV risk mitigation.
A.21: Core housing, Housing repairs, NFI distribution, Trainings, Guidelines, Disaster Risk Reduction.
|Malawi||2015||Natural disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.19-A.21|
|Somalia, 2011-2013, Complex/Multiple||2011-2013||Drought and Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.22)|| Crisis: Drought (July 2011 - June 2012) and armed conflict. |
Summary: This was a two-year, multi-donor, multi-sectoral, project aimed at providing a sustainable shelter solution by building 1,200 permanent houses for IDP households in two relocation sites. The shelter programme was linked to Livelihoods, WASH, Health, and Education. The project adopted holistic settlement as well as community-led construction approaches. The organisation managed to secure the land and receive additional funding for complementary activities, including infrastructure, facilities and common spaces.
|Permanent housing, Resettlement advocacy, Infrastructure, Training, Community participation, Land tenure||Somalia||2011||2013||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.22|
|South Sudan, 2013-2016, Complex/Multiple||2013-2016||Complex/Multiple||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.23)|| Crisis: South Sudan civil war; economic decline and food insecurity provoking protracted internal and cross-border displacement, 2013-ongoing |
Summary: The complex emergency in South Sudan – after the breakout of violence in December 2013 – created massive displacement and required a flexible approach to planning, coordination and implementation. The response focused primarily on immediate needs and emergency solutions. However, after 2015, efforts were made to shift to more durable (emergency) solutions for individuals in protracted displacement, particularly within Protection of Civilians sites (PoCs).
|South Sudan||2013||2016||Complex/Multiple||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.23|
|South Sudan, 2013-2016, Complex/Multiple||2013-2016||Complex/Multiple||2 case studies||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.23-A.25)|| Crisis: South Sudan civil war; economic decline and food insecurity provoking protracted internal and cross-border displacement, 2013-ongoing |
A.24 Case study summary: Through the management of a common Shelter-NFI pipeline in South Sudan since 2013, this programme has ensured a continual and quality supply of materials for rapid distribution by cluster partners to displaced and conflict-affected communities across the country. The pipeline has helped partners quickly implement emergency shelter interventions, through coordinated planning and prepositioning.
A.25 Case study summary: The project constructed 11,778 shelters in the Protection of Civilians site in Bentiu. The project was closely linked with the phasing of a broader USD 18 million project of site works, which converted a camp that seasonably flooded into a habitable site.
A.24: Pipeline, NFI distribution, Emergency shelter, Procurement.
A.25: Emergency shelter, Site planning, Phased construction, Infrastructure, Planned camps.
|South Sudan||2013||2016||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.23-A.25|
|Ethiopia, South Sudan, refugees||2014-2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.26)|| Crisis: South Sudan refugee crisis, December 2013-ongoing |
Summary: The project supported the construction of 835 transitional shelters in a refugee camp in the Gambella region for South Sudanese fleeing conflict, alongside WASH and NFI activities. The shelters were constructed with traditional techniques, locally available materials and a high involvement of the beneficiaries.
|Transitional shelter, Site planning, Training, Local techniques||Ethiopia||2014||2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.26|
|Un. Rep. of Tanzania, 2016-2017, Conflict||2016-2017||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.27)|| Crisis: Conflict/political tension, April 2015-ongoing. Refugees from Burundi |
Summary: This project provided durable shelter for refugees fleeing violence in Burundi, across three refugee camps in Western Tanzania. The programme was based on a community engagement model to produce adobe bricks within the camps and was accompanied by training and the production of a technical manual.
|Transitional shelter, Adobe brick making, Training, Community participation||Un. Rep. of Tanzania||2016||2017||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.27|
|Gaza, Palestine, 2014-2016, Conflict||2014-2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.28)|| Crisis: Israel-Hamas conflict in July-August 2014 |
Summary: This project provided 470 transitional shelters to the most vulnerable households in Gaza, whose homes were completely destroyed in the conflict, but had sufficient rubble-free space on their land. This assistance allowed beneficiaries to return to their neighbourhoods to begin rebuilding their permanent houses, while living in an adequate, safe and dignified shelter.
|Transitional shelter, Cash assistance, Infrastructure, Training, Guidelines||Palestine||2014||2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.28|
|Whole of Syria, 2014-2016, Conflict||2014-2016||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.29)|| Crisis: Conflict, 2011-ongoing |
Summary: Six years into the Syrian crisis, basic shelter and NFI needs remained high within the country, as well as in neighbouring countries, hosting the majority of the Syrian refugees worldwide. This overview deals with the challenges, shelter situation and shelter-related needs in the Syrian Arab Republic, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, as well as the key response modalities taken in these countries. These range from distribution of emergency shelter in the form of tents or kits, to upgrades in camps, as well as repair or winterization packages and rental support to target affected people in host settings.
|Whole of Syria||2014||2016||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.29|
|Syrian Arab Republic, 2015-2016, Conflict||2015-2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.30)|| Crisis: Syrian conflict, March 2011-ongoing |
Summary: Linking relief to recovery, the project targeted IDPs and host communities with repairs to the main damaged parts of their houses and distribution of shelter repair kits, heaters, winterization kits and kitchen utensils. All activities were accompanied by awareness sessions on protection as wells as hygiene habits.
|Housing repair, Host family support, NFI distribution, Training, Structural assessment, Gender and GBV mainstreaming, Protection||Syrian Arab Republic||2015||2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.30|
|Lebanon, 2015-2016, Conflict||2015-2016||Conflict||2 case studies||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.31-A.32)|| Crisis: Syrian Refugee crisis in Lebanon, 2011-ongoing |
A.31 Case study summary: The organisation used a holistic, neighbourhood, approach across delineated zones in dense urban areas. Shelter rehabilitations and upgrades were provided to 207 and 499 households respectively, along with improvements to water and sanitation facilities. Campaigns on hygiene promotion and housing, land and property rights were also conducted. Community-wide projects were implemented to improve service delivery, such as water and solid waste management.
A.32 Case study summary: This project provided fire-retardant insulation kits and weatherproofing to over 2,300 refugee households in informal settlements and incomplete dwellings. The kits provided thermal comfort, enhanced health outcomes and decreased fuel consumption, without adding to the fire hazard.
A.31: Urban, Housing repair / retrofitting, Cash / vouchers, Advocacy/ legal, Training, Guidelines / mass communications, Community participation.
A.32: Shelter retrofitting, NFI distribution, Winterization, Insulation
|Lebanon||2015||2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.31-A.32|
|Iraq, 2014-2016, Conflict||2014-2016||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.33)|| Crisis: Syria and Iraq Conflicts, provoking protracted cross-border and internal displacement |
Summary: The situation in Iraq has been unstable for several years for both the internal conflict and the impacts of the Syrian crisis. The shelter response has taken a range of approaches, from mobile assistance for populations on the move, to a variety of interventions for displaced, host communities, refugee and returnee caseloads in multiple settlement situations, including camps, which have been the preferred form of assistance from the government. Integrated programming, protection and accessibility considerations have become essential in responding to such protracted crisis.
|Iraq||2014||2016||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.33|
|Iraq, 2014-2016, Conflict||2014-2016||Conflict||3 case studies||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.33-A.36)|| Crisis: Armed conflict in Iraq since January 2014 |
A.34 Case study summary: The project assisted 2,278 displaced and returnee families to rehabilitate and/or reconstruct damaged and deteriorating shelter structures. Rehabilitation prioritized infrastructure upgrades of religious buildings (Husseinyas) and other critical shelter arrangements, including the damaged houses of returnees. The interventions included the construction of internal wall partitioning, WASH and electrical upgrades, replacing damaged roofing and minor structural repairs.
A.35 Case study summary: The programme was carried out in five refugee camps in Iraq in two separate projects, focusing on shelter-related issues specific to persons with disabilities. The projects upgraded existing shelters and plots and adapted global accessibility standards to the camp context and cultural norms of the Middle East. The programme sought to adopt a holistic approach, through focusing not only on the individuals with disabilities, but also on the needs of the caregivers.
A.36 Case study summary: This project established four durable sites for vulnerable IDPs, equipped with 1,406 prefabricated shelter units accompanied by basic infrastructure and public facilities. It also developed institutional capacity of the targeted governorates and introduced guidelines and plans to develop and manage these sites. Additionally, the project provided temporary premises (classrooms and accommodation) for 512 students of Fallujah University.
A.34: Housing repair / retrofitting, Religious buildings upgrade, Training, Guidelines.
A.35: Accessibility, Disabilities, Planned and managed camps, Materials distribution.
A.36: Prefab shelters, Site planning, Infrastructure, Capacity-building, Protection, Gender, Advocacy.
|Iraq||2015||2016||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.33-A.36|
|Yemen, 2015-2016, Conflict||2015-2016||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.37)|| Crisis: Yemen Conflict, March 2015-ongoing |
Summary: Working in an extremely insecure environment, with international and national armed actors and enormous needs, the shelter response in Yemen struggled under enormous access and funding constraints. Programmes primarily provided non-food items and emergency shelter materials. At a smaller scale, shelter programmes rehabilitated collective centres and provided conditional cash transfers for rental assistance or non-food items.
|Yemen||2015||2016||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.37|
|Chile, 2014-2016, Fire||2014-2016||Natural disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.38)|| Crisis: Valparaiso fire, Chile, 12 April 2014 |
Summary: This government-led programme provided four types of reconstruction subsidies to over 3,800 families affected by the fire in the steep hills of Valparaiso, Chile. The majority of the subsidies were provided through an assisted self-reconstruction scheme, whereby the funds would be disbursed along with technical assistance by architects or engineers in coordination with local NGOs, and the families would take care of rebuilding themselves.
|Housing reconstruction, Subsidies, Self-recovery, Urban||Chile||2014||2016||Natural disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.38|
|Ecuador, 2016, Earthquake||2016||Natural disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.39)|| Crisis: Ecuador earthquake, 16 April 2016 |
Summary: On 16 April 2016, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck the coastal areas of north-west Ecuador, impacting eight different provinces across the country and damaging or destroying over 45,000 houses. The response was led by the government and consisted of an emergency subsidy package followed by a reconstruction plan for the longer term. The international community assisted primarily in the emergency and transitional phases in rural areas and with advocacy and capacity building activities.
|Ecuador||2016||Natural disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.39|
|Ecuador, 2016, Earthquake||2016||Natural disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.39-A.40)|| Crisis: Ecuador earthquake, 16 April 2016 |
A.40 Case study summary: This project was the result of a collaborative effort between two international organisations (INGO) and a local NGO, to assist earthquake-affected families through the provision of emergency shelter kits and non-food items, coupled with technical support and trainings. Further construction materials were distributed for particularly vulnerable households in the second phase of the project.
A.40:Emergency shelter, NFI distribution, Capacity-building, Community participation, partnerships
|Ecuador||2016||Natural disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.39-A.40|
|Europe, 2015-2016, Refugee crisis||2015-2016||Complex/Multiple||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.41)|| Crisis: Migration flows to Europe, 2011-2016 |
Summary: A massive influx of refugees and migrants through South-Eastern European countries has resulted in a state of emergency in transit – as well as destination – countries between 2015 and 2016. However, migration towards Europe was not a new phenomenon. This overview focuses on the shelter coordination and response to this crisis in key locations, primarily Greece, the Balkans and Germany, where the majority of first arrivals to the EU, transit and final arrivals to destination were found.
|Europe||2015||2016||Complex/Multiple||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.41|
|Germany, 2015-2016, Refugee crisis||2015-2016||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.41-A.42)|| Crisis: European migrant and refugee crisis (multiple countries of origin) |
A.42 Case study summary: Two short-term reception centres were set up in the state of Bavaria to provide temporary accommodation for thousands of migrants and refugees entering Germany at the peak of the migration crisis in 2015. One site was set up in the summer and then winterized in phases, while the other opened as a winterized camp after a longer construction period.
A.42:Emergency shelter, NFI distribution, Site planning, Infrastructure, Planned and managed camp, Short-term reception centre
|Germany||2015||2016||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.41-A.42|
|Ukraine, 2014-2016, Conflict||2014-2016||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (A.43)|| Crisis: Conflict, 2014-ongoing |
Summary: Political unrest in Eastern Ukraine led to a humanitarian crisis, since the start of hostilities in early 2014. After three years, shelter-NFI needs remain high for IDPs, non-displaced populations with damaged dwellings, host communities and returnees. Along with covering immediate needs, the Shelter-NFI Cluster has promoted preparedness and durable solutions, especially focusing on winterization activities.
|Ukraine||2014||2016||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||A.43|
|GBV mainstreaming for good shelter programming, 2017||2017||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (B.01)||Summary: GBV mainstreaming is part of an overall gender approach and is essentially about achieving better, more effective and impactful, shelter projects that proactively aim to do no harm. Through a series of examples from different contexts, this article highlights why GBV mainstreaming is relevant to shelter actors, as well as explores why considering gender-based violence (GBV) – and how to mitigate its risks in a shelter intervention – ensures better programme design and implementation.||GBV mainstreaming, Shelter programming||-n/a-||2017||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||B.1|
|Enabling post-disaster shelter recovery, 2017||2017||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (B.02)||Summary: After natural disasters, shelter programmes which tend to prioritize structural safety over other objectives run the risk of missing or exacerbating other risks, such as loss of livelihoods, social exclusion or exploitation. Addressing structural concerns in isolation will not ensure that vulnerable people are safer than before the disaster. This article argues that, to address this, shelter practitioners need to rethink their role in defining what is “better” or “safer”, by revising how the shelter sector currently assesses “risk” and “success”, in ways that transfer decision-making power in the hands of affected people, instead of largely being kept in the hands of professionals.||Shelter programming, Practitioners, Risk assessment, Defining success||-n/a-||2017||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||B.2|
|Scale, quality, coverage and impact in shelter and settlements projects, 2017||2017||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2015-2016 (B.02)||Summary: In most crises, those people receiving shelter support are a minority of the total with need. Questions of scale, coverage, quality, and impact in implementing shelter and settlement programmes thus become key in defining “good” programming, and how best to use limited resources for timely support to populations in need. In agreeing an appropriate level of support, humanitarians need to be mindful of what the impacts will be on those who will be directly assisted, those who are able to support themselves, and what will happen to those whom they are not able to assist. This article highlights some of these challenges, drawing from case studies in Shelter Projects.||Scale, Coverage, Quality, Impact, Shelter programming||-n/a-||2017||-n/a-||Opinion piece||Shelter Projects 2015-2016||B.3|
|Burundi, 2017-2018, Camp closure||2017–2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.01)||Crisis: El Niño and La Niña rains and floods, October 2015–March 2016 |
Summary: The project decommissioned four camps for flood-affected, displaced persons and offered shelter support, NFI kits, transportation and reintegration assistance to the camps’ inhabitants. More than 5,000 individuals were resettled in safe and dignified areas, although they remained in need of more secure and durable solutions. Those who could move to a safe piece of land received semi-permanent shelters and latrines, while those who could not were provided with rental support for six months.
|Camp decommissioning, Semi-permanent shelter, Rental support||Burundi||2017||2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.01|
|DRC, 2018, Conflict||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.02)||Crisis: Kasai conflict, January 2017–onwards |
Summary: The project provided non-food items kits to 630 displaced, returnee and host community households and built 200 shelters for the most vulnerable amongst them using local designs and materials. Shelter solidarity committees were established to oversee the design and construction process, which was driven by the affected households themselves. Vulnerability scorecards were used to prioritize beneficiaries based on NFI and shelter materials conditions, combined with additional socioeconomic and vulnerability criteria, designed together with the community.
|Emergency shelter, NFI, Vulnerability scorecard, Local construction techniques||Dem. Rep. Congo||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.02|
|Kenya, 2018, Floods||2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.03)||Crisis: Floods, March–June 2018 |
Summary: This emergency shelter project supported the recovery of 2,000 households displaced by flooding in Kenya by providing shelter, NFI kits and training. Although procurement challenges around the importation of single-use plastics delayed the delivery, the project still managed to achieve its goals in a timely manner. A monitoring and evaluation framework orientated around short-term outcomes was used to monitor the contribution of the project to self-recovery processes. The data gathered at distributions enabled the implementation team to learn and improve project delivery.
|Shelter kit, Monitoring and Evaluation, Self-recovery||Kenya||2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.03|
|Nigeria, 2017-2018, Conflict||2017–2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.04)||Crisis: Conflict (Boko Haram conflict), 2014–onwards |
Summary: Through a settlement-based approach, the project provided shelter repair support to affected households, as well as rehabilitation of community infrastructure, vocational training and livelihood assistance. The shelter component targeted 900 households with damaged houses in return areas, using a combination of in-kind distribution and cash grants. An individual scope of work was developed for each damaged house and technical supervision was provided during the rehabilitation, undertaken by the families themselves. The cash distribution was challenging due to high security risks and limited financial service providers.
|Shelter repairs, Cash, Links with recovery, Security of tenure / HLP||Nigeria||2017||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.04|
|Somalia, 2018, Drought||2018||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.05)||Crisis: 2017 Drought |
Summary: To support displaced nomadic pastoralists in the Somaliland region, the project provided lightweight, mobile, shelter and non-food items kits to 1,000 households. It was delivered through an implementing partner who engaged local development organizations with strong links to the targeted communities. The post-distribution monitoring revealed unintended outcomes highlighting the creative ability of the affected populations. It also showed how certain items in the toolkits were not appropriate.
|Shelter kits, NFI, Training, Post-distribution monitoring||Somalia||2018||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.05|
|South Sudan, 2017-2018, Overview||2017–2018||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.06)||Crisis: South Sudan Civil War, December 2013–onwards |
Summary: More than three years from the beginning of the crisis, Shelter and NFI needs remained very high both for newly displaced populations and for those who had been displaced multiple times or were in protracted displacement. While in-kind distribution remained the main response modality, in 2017 and 2018 the Shelter-NFI response started to focus more on cash-based interventions and activities to support return in areas of sufficient stability.
|South Sudan||2017||2018||Conflict||Overview||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.06|
|South Sudan, 2017-2018, Conflict||2017–2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.07)||Crisis: South Sudan Civil War, December 2013–onwards |
Summary: The project enabled the construction of fuel-efficient stoves in a camp through a voucher system. Beneficiaries (almost entirely women) used the vouchers to access stove construction materials procured by local traders and were responsible for constructing the stove. The organization provided cash-for-work grants upon successful completion of a fully functional stove, as well as skills trainings. Significant cost savings were achieved by procuring locally sourced materials from multiple local traders and transferring the supply chain management costs to them, including storage, transport and distribution.
|Fuel-efficient stoves, Vouchers, Women’s empowerment, Private sector, Cost-effectiveness||South Sudan||2017||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.07|
|South Sudan, 2017-2018, Conflict||2017–2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.08)||Crisis: South Sudan Civil War, December 2013–onwards |
Summary: The project upgraded 804 communal shelters in the Wau Protection of Civilians (PoC) site as part of a large-scale rehabilitation, by using local materials to protect tarpaulins. All procurement was local and a consortium of small-scale traders within the site was established. Materials were distributed through voucher fairs and the beneficiaries were responsible for installing the upgrades themselves. The project also included skills training on bamboo thatched walls and a cash-for-work grant.
|Shelter upgrades, Voucher fairs, Cash for work, Community engagement||South Sudan||2017||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.08|
|South Sudan, 2018, Conflict||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.09)||Crisis: South Sudan Civil War, December 2013–onwards |
Summary: As part of the wider rehabilitation of the whole site, the project targeted a sector in the Malakal Protection of Civilians site to reconfigure its layout and address issues of overcrowding, security, flood risk and poor distribution of services. One organization was in charge of the site planning and development, while another led the community mobilization, site management and shelter components. Robust emergency shelters according to Cluster-agreed designs were provided to the residents of the reconfigured sector of the site, through a highly consultative process.
|Site planning, Site rehabilitation, Shelter construction, Coordination, Community engagement||South Sudan||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.09|
|Uganda, 2017-2018, South Sudan crisis||2017–2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.10)||Crisis: South Sudan Civil War (refugees in Uganda), December 2013–onwards |
Summary: Two organizations working in two different refugee settlements built 1,020 semi-permanent shelters and latrines for South Sudanese refugees. The project targeted households with vulnerable individuals, such as elderly people, survivors of gender-based violence, and people with disabilities. Two different shelters were constructed using traditional techniques and locally available materials. Both refugee and host community youth were actively engaged through a cash-for-work component.
|Shelter construction, Community engagement, Local techniques / capacity, GBV risk mitigation||Uganda||2017||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.10|
|Dominica, 2017-2018, Hurricane Maria||2017–2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.11)||Crisis: Hurricane Maria, 18 September 2017 |
Summary: The project repaired 670 roofs and constructed 80 core houses in compliance with Dominica housing standards, for households affected by the large-scale damage caused by Hurricane Maria. The island has a shortage of skilled construction workers and labourers compared to the magnitude of destruction and recurring hurricane seasons. Thus, the programme used circular migration of 40 skilled workers from the region and extensive training of local labourers.
|Roof repairs, Core housing, Training, Migrant labour||Dominica||2017||2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.11|
|Ecuador, 2016-2018, Earthquake||2016–2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.12)||Crisis: Ecuador Earthquake, 16 April 2016 |
Summary: Housing Land and Property (HLP) rights were a primary area of concern during the humanitarian response to the earthquake in Ecuador in 2016. In recognition of this, the Protection and Shelter Clusters collaborated to set up an HLP Working Group in the early stages of the response. This group was able to identify potential barriers to assistance and managed to actively influence public policy in order to ensure that the humanitarian response and reconstruction process did not exclude the most vulnerable populations.
|Advocacy, Security of tenure, HLP Rights, Coordination, Local authorities engagement||Ecuador||2016||2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.12|
|Bangladesh, 2017-2018, Overview||2017–2018||Complex/Multiple||Overview||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.13)||Crisis: Rohingya Refugee Crisis, Cox’s Bazar, 25 August 2017–onwards |
Summary: The humanitarian response to the massive refugee influx from Myanmar to Bangladesh was the largest single operation of 2017. For the Shelter Sector it was particularly challenging, due to the site conditions, congestion, limited shelter options and the extreme weather patterns. The Sector provided in-kind and technical assistance through different phases and an incremental approach to improve living conditions and safety within the settlements. In coordination with the Site Management Sector, the response also focused on site improvements and larger infrastructure works, as well as preparedness activities ahead of the monsoon season.
|Bangladesh||2017||2018||Complex/Multiple||Overview||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.13|
|Bangladesh, 2017-2018, Rohingya crisis||2017–2018||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.14)||Crisis: Rohingya Refugee Crisis, Cox’s Bazar, 25 August 2017–onwards |
Summary: In less than two months, over 400,000 refugees self-settled around existing refugee settlements in Cox’s Bazar. This case study highlights the challenges site planners faced in the first six months working in this context. More refugees continued to arrive, secondary displacement increased, and agencies requested additional land to provide infrastructure and basic services. The case study chronicles the first attempts to map and understand the spontaneous settlements, identify additional land and design the first planned resettlement areas, to prepare for and mitigate the effects of the imminent monsoon season.
|Site planning, Coordination, Disaster Risk Reduction||Bangladesh||2017||2018||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.14|
|Bangladesh, 2017-2018, Rohingya crisis||2017–2018||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.15)||Crisis: Rohingya Refugee Crisis, Cox’s Bazar, 25 August 2017–onwards |
Summary: This project provided shelter upgrade kits, training and technical assistance to help recently arrived refugees in Cox’s Bazar reduce their shelter vulnerability to potential heavy rains and winds. It was part of the second phase of the shelter response, following the emergency distributions after the massive influx in 2017. To meet the scale of needs, resources were carefully allocated to provide shelter materials, tools and technical assistance, and mobilize the community for shelter upgrade and localized site improvements. The organization also provided coordination services and established a common pipeline, which contributed to reaching the Sector target of 180,000 households before the monsoon season.
|Shelter upgrades, Training, Coordination, Scale and coverage, Common pipeline||Bangladesh||2017||2018||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.15|
|Nepal, 2015-2018, Recovery, Overview||2015–2018||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.16)||Crisis: Nepal Earthquake, 25 April 2015 |
Summary: The Nepal earthquakes of 2015 caused immense damage to housing stock across 32 districts, nearly half of the country. The Nepal Government surveyed over one million houses damaged or destroyed and then implemented an owner-driven reconstruction programme with a generous grant. The case studies that follow reflect on important elements of the humanitarian response and recovery four years after the event and highlight the continued need for recovery activities and coordination. A.17 focuses on coordination and transition from emergency to recovery; A.18 explores the importance and challenges of socio-technical assistance programmes to accompany reconstruction; A.19 describes a response to flooding during ongoing recovery.
|Nepal||2015||2018||Natural Disaster||Overview||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.16|
|Nepal, 2015-2019, Recovery Coordination||2015–2019||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.17)||Crisis: Nepal Earthquake, 25 April 2015 |
Summary: After the Nepal earthquake of 2015 and its aftershocks, coordination of recovery efforts was critical. Since 2015, the coordination platform for these efforts evolved, with leadership from a series of different recovery actors. The case study focuses on two periods of time. First, on the transition of coordination leadership from the Nepal Shelter Cluster to the Housing Recovery and Reconstruction Platform (HRRP) in its first phase. Second, on the HRRP’s third phase, under the co-leadership of a national and an international NGO. Through these two snapshots, the case study highlights the impact of initial challenges and successes on later recovery coordination efforts.
|Housing recovery, Coordination, Advocacy||Nepal||2015||2019||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.17|
|Nepal, 2016-2017, Earthquake recovery||2016–2017||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.18)||Crisis: Nepal Earthquake, 25 April 2015 |
Summary: The project targeted 1,797 vulnerable households in remote areas affected by the 2015 earthquake. It provided a housing reconstruction grant, coupled with technical assistance, to build a seismically safe structure. The implementing organization trained over 3,000 masons on earthquake-resistant, code-compliant construction techniques using local materials, and offered vocational training to over 1,000 youth in the project areas to address the severe lack of skilled labour. A national awareness campaign on the government reconstruction procedures and Build Back Safer messages was also conducted, to reach a wider group of the affected population outside of the direct targeted households.
|Reconstruction grants, Technical assistance, Community engagement||Nepal||2016||2017||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.18|
|Nepal, 2017-2018, Floods||2017–2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.19)||Crisis: Floods, 11 August 2017 |
Summary: This project provided 1,418 flood-affected households with emergency shelters through a participatory process and using locally available materials. Shelters were made of bamboo and included several risk mitigation features. Trainings were conducted on safe construction techniques, resulting in many people upgrading their shelters during and after the project. The organization also advocated and paved the way for longer-term reconstruction programmes, and looked at addressing land tenure issues of landless populations.
|Emergency shelter, Local construction techniques, Training, Links to recovery||Nepal||2017||2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.19|
|Philippines, 2015-2017, Typhoon Haiyan||2015–2017||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.20)||Crisis: Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda), 8 Nov 2013 |
Summary: The organization targeted 1,200 of the most vulnerable households on two islands in North Cebu hit by Typhoon Haiyan. It provided long-term earthquake- and typhoon-resistant core houses through a cash-based and owner-driven approach. Houses were made partly of timber and partly of interlocking compressed earth blocks (ICEB) procured from local suppliers. The project provided training in disaster risk reduction measures, safe construction techniques, financial and project management, thereby strengtening community cooperation and support mechanisms.
|Core housing, Disaster Risk Reduction, Construction techniques||Philippines||2015||2017||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.20|
|Philippines, 2016-2018, Typhoon Haiyan||2016–2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.21)||Crisis: Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda), 8 Nov 2013 |
Summary: The project supported 516 typhoon-affected households with shelter repair assistance. With learnings from the first phase of the project, which started shortly after the typhoon, the second phase gave homeowners and technical staff options to use cash grants effectively, in order to improve one core room of the existing house to withstand future forces such as earthquakes or strong winds.
|Shelter repairs, Structural assessment, Capacity-building, Cash and Technical Assistance||Philippines||2016||2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.21|
|Philippines, 2018, Tropical Storm Kai-Tak||2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.22)||Crisis: Tropical Storm Kai-Tak (Urduja), 16 Dec 2017 |
Summary: To fill the gap between emergency shelter and permanent housing after displacement caused by Tropical Storm Kai-Tak, this project delivered shelter kits and non-food items to support the return of households to homes located on no-build zones. It recognized that it was preferable for affected households to repair storm-damaged homes located on restricted land rather than continue staying in collective centres, while they awaited the completion of the national government housing. This potentially contentious project was completed with support from local government units and the affected communities.
|Shelter kits, Links with recovery, Security of tenure / HLP, No-build zones||Philippines||2018||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.22|
|Sri Lanka, 2010-2017, Conflict returns||2010–2017||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.23)||Crisis: Sri Lanka Civil Conflict, 1983–2009 |
Summary: After the three-decade long conflict in the country, this multi-year reconstruction programme supported 31,358 returnee families in Sri Lanka through an owner-driven approach. With a budget of over USD 142 million, it provided permanent houses, infrastructure and communal facilities to conflict-affected communities, reaching over 420,000 individuals in seven years.
|Housing reconstruction, Community engagement, Women’s empowerment||Sri Lanka||2010||2017||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.23|
|Sri Lanka, 2017, Floods||2017||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.24)||Crisis: Floods and Landslides, 24 May 2017 |
Summary: The project targeted a total of 25,365 people affected by floods and landslides with lifesaving shelter and NFI assistance. A network of community-based organizations and affected families themselves were engaged to conduct shelter repairs, build transitional shelters for those unable to return, distribute NFIs and upgrade evacuation facilities. Disaster risk reduction features were included in the response and salvaged materials were reused in the repairs.
|Housing repair, Transitional shelter, Evacuation centre upgrade, Disaster Risk Reduction, Community-based organizations||Sri Lanka||2017||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.24|
|France, 2015-2016, Refugee crisis||2015–2016||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.25)||Crisis: Europe Refugee and Migrant Crisis, 2015–2016 |
Summary: This project provided shelter assistance to 10,000 refugees and migrants living in the unplanned “Jungle” camp in Calais. It was implemented by a volunteer-run network with limited capacities in a very fluid environment (the camp was partially destroyed twice). Self-build shelter kits and technical support were provided to those able to build, while volunteers built prefabricated shelters for the most vulnerable. After the second reduction, further shelter construction was prevented by the authorities, and volunteer groups mainly provided tents solutions the final closure and dismantlement of the camp.
|Emergency shelter, Unplanned site, Volunteers||France||2015||2016||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.25|
|Iraq, 2016-2017, Conflict, Mosul operation||2016–2017||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.26)||Crisis: Mosul operation, 17 Oct 2016–July 2017 |
Summary: To respond to the mass displacement as a result of military operations in Mosul, this project established two emergency sites following a request from the government and in coordination with CCCM and Shelter Clusters. The organization adopted a rapid-response settlement approach whereby – together with partner agencies – the sites were selected and planned in a month and an initial capacity of 1,200 households was established within two months. Additional capacity was created incrementally, with infrastructure upgrades such as water supply, electricity and service facilities. The project eventually achieved an accommodation capacity of 17,500 households within less than six months.
|Site planning, Infrastructure, Coordination, Coverage and scale||Iraq||2016||2017||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.26|
|Iraq, 2017-2018, Conflict||2017–2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.27)||Crisis: Iraq conflict, Jan 2014–onwards |
Summary: The project repaired 650 houses in the Ninewa governorate in Iraq, benefiting displaced, returnee and local vulnerable households. It was implemented using a voucher modality. This significantly contributed to increasing livelihood opportunities within the local markets through the engagement of local suppliers. The project used a community-based approach, as beneficiaries could choose between having the organization in charge of carrying out the rehabilitation (through local contractors) or completing the agreed renovations themselves, with supervision and support.
|Housing repair, Vouchers, Local private sector engagement||Iraq||2017||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.27|
|Syrian Arab Republic, 2015-2017, Conflict||2015–2017||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.28)||Crisis: Syrian conflict, 2011–onwards |
Summary: Between 2015 and 2017, five housing projects were implemented by a lead organization and its partners in Syria close to the Turkish border. The projects built a total of 1,100 mud houses using a traditional and cost-effective construction technique, mainly with local materials, to support displaced people in a highly volatile context. The projects provided vocational training, job opportunities and local market reinvigoration. They also contributed to social cohesion in targeted communities and longer-term sustainable development, by supporting investments and enhancing local capacities and knowledge.
|Adobe houses, Local construction techniques, Capacity-building||Syrian Arab Republic||2015||2017||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.28|
|Syrian Arab Republic, 2017-2018, Conflict||2017–2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.29)||Crisis: Syrian conflict, 2011–onwards |
Summary: This project provided shelter, WASH and HLP rights assistance to rehabilitate 124 housing units, targeting both long-term displaced and host community members in urban and peri-urban areas. Through a process of verification of ownership and usage rights, all tenants signed a certificate of occupancy for a 12-month rent-free period, while owners signed a donation certificate. The project team was involved in managing and resolving any potential disputes. Owing to access constraints, the project was managed remotely from Amman.
|Shelter rehabilitation, Remote management, Security of tenure / HLP||Syrian Arab Republic||2017||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.29|
|Syrian Arab Republic, 2017-2018, Conflict||2017–2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.30)||Crisis: Syrian conflict, 2011–onwards |
Summary: The organization rehabilitated five collective shelters, with integrated WASH and protection assistance, through the establishment of voluntary community committees. The project was based on a shelter assessment conducted earlier by the organization with the aim of improving and harmonizing the humanitarian shelter interventions in the southern parts of the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria). Building on this, the organization also developed guidance notes for shelter interventions in collective centres, host families and informal tented settlements. Due to an escalation in conflict, the project failed to scale up and could only assist 58 households.
|Collective centres upgrade, Protection mainstreaming, Remote management||Syrian Arab Republic||2017||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.30|
|Syrian Arab Republic, 2018, Conflict||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.31)||Crisis: Syrian conflict, 2011–onwards |
Summary: This multisectoral project targeted 10 collective centres in Rural Damascus hosting displaced people fleeing from hostilities in East Ghouta through humanitarian corridors. It supported 65,000 people in a very limited timeframe, conducting rehabilitation works in 45 days and then following with maintenance activities. Interventions included shelter, water and sanitation, hygiene promotion, waste disposal and maintenance of the facilities. Prefabricated shelter kits and tents were used in and around buildings to set-up shelters or privacy partitions.
|Collective centre rehabilitation, Integrated programming, Timeliness, Scale and coverage||Syrian Arab Republic||2018||Conflict||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.31|
|Turkey, 2017-2018, Syria crisis||2017–2018||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.32)||Crisis: Syrian refugee crisis in Turkey, 2011–onwards |
Summary: The project assisted Syrian tenants and local host community households in south-east Turkey with rehabilitation and upgrade works and written landlord agreements. It was one of the first shelter interventions in the area and was mainly implemented via contractors, with only a small conditional cash component for lighter repairs. Upgrades included the installation of walled partitions with locks, improved lighting, repairs of water and sanitation facilities, sealing of exposed roofs and walls, and thermal insulation. The project also provided training, tools and job opportunities for refugees and host community members.
|Housing repair, Security of tenure, Social cohesion, Local private sector engagement||Turkey||2017||2018||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.32|
|Yemen, 2017-2018, Conflict, Overview||2017–2018||Complex/Multiple||Overview||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (A.33)||Crisis: Yemen Conflict, March 2015–onwards |
Summary: In 2017 and 2018, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen remained the worst in the world, with nearly 75 per cent of the entire population requiring assistance. People with shelter and NFI needs increased 17 per cent in two years, and needs were compounded by the food crisis, intense fighting, cholera and a cyclone. The shelter and NFI response focused on the distribution of emergency shelter and NFI kits and, to a lesser extent, on rental support, transitional shelter and housing rehabilitation. Activities were implemented using cash whenever possible.
|Yemen||2017||2018||Complex/Multiple||Overview||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||A.33|
|India, 1935, Quetta earthquake||1935–1936||Natural Disaster||Historical Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (B.01)||Crisis: Quetta Earthquake, 31 May 1935, India (now part of Pakistan) |
Summary: In 1935 a major earthquake destroyed Quetta, a city on colonial India’s north-western frontier. The military and civilian authorities successfully organized shelter, food and medical attention for at least 13,000 survivors, before evacuating 31,500 survivors to other parts of India. Through a very centralized, top-down approach, Quetta was reconstructed according to a new, aseismic building code.
|Governance, Urban, Disaster Risk Reduction||India||1935||1936||Natural Disaster||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||B.01|
|Humanitarian tarpaulin development||1993–||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017–2018 (B.02)||Humanitarian tarpaulin development |
Summary: By working with an inter-agency working group and by establishing clear quality control processes throughout the global supply chain for non-food items, the organization was able to improve quality, pricing and timeliness of a major relief item: the tarpaulin. Processes included research and development, active sourcing to identify manufacturers, factory visits to ensure that social and environmental conditions were adhered to, common specifications developed on an inter-agency basis, and scientific sampling. The organization’s quality control systems have led to more than USD 1.5 million of penalties (for suppliers) and savings (for agencies). But more importantly, the focus has been on building relationships with manufacturers so that they better understand the needs, and that agencies can provide items of suitable quality and durability to vulnerable crisis-affected people.
|Plastic sheeting, Specifications, Cost-effectiveness, Quality control, Procurement and supply||Global||1993||Complex/Multiple||Case study||Shelter Projects 2017-2018||B.02|