Shelter Vulnerability Classification WG - running notes
Key Links:
  • nhpnikq/AABBdXMFjKcfP3M0w2aolzy9a?dl=0

Meeting Date: 9 October 2019 11.00 CEST - GSC Shelter Week Meeting - Working Group Session
Present: Neil, Hannoa, Augusto, Chloe; participants from GSC Meeting (around 20)

Introduction and outline of session- Neil
  • Introduction of all breakout group members (around 15-20)
  • Background / history of the working group
  • Overview of work completed so far, explanation of progress on framework
  • Current aims of the group
  • Explanation of JIAG overall process, how this affected the process and how it can be connected

Initial questions from participants prior to group work
  • Question on the scope of the framework/tools and whether they are supposed to include consideration of host communities and how they are affected.
  • Question on how the process and outputs will impact the HNO 2019 / 2020 process, and how the tool may help to estimate PiN.
  • Question on whether tenure / rental market / housing stock aspects are reflected in the framework. 
  • Question on timelines and when the results / outputs will be available. 
  • Note that some countries (Yemen, Ukraine) have done or are conducting similar or related in-country exercises; it would be useful to gather and incorporate these.

Group work
  • Three groups- household, sub-national and national- asked to provide input and suggestions on indicators, as well as prioritise indicators they see as particularly important.

Comments related to indicators / framework (general comments; specific comments added to indicator sheet)
  • Suggestion to consider including more of a disability focus (even if this is just disaggregation of certain indicators), to incorporate the fact that people with disabilities are likely to be more vulnerable to shelter issues.
  • Discussion on the potential inclusion of capabilities approach (from development thinking) or aspects of self-recovery within the framework
  • Consideration of how this can be measured- amending / adding indicators within certain sections, viewing the framework from a different lens.
  • Consideration of whether the answer is to look at resilience indicators.
  • May need to split conflict and natural disasters when prioritising indicators.
  • Point raised about the issue of groups which aren't necessarily the 'most vulnerable', but in the middle, so continuously don't receive assistance for years- suggestion to include basic needs aspect.
  • Note that the definition of vulnerability could be clearer- question around whether this is supposed to align with JIAG, whether there is an intended difference for pre/post crisis situations, whether it is supposed to incorporate capability to recover.
  • Could add a greater component on energy and green programming (e.g. no of HH / infrastructure included in such programmes).
  • Can add environmental sustainability to national level frameworks.
  • Suggestion to try to include measures of socio-cultural vulnerability.
  • Could consider merging the contingency planning and coordination/disaster management sub-factors, to reduce overlap in these areas.
  • Could add the presence of in-country cadastre to institutional capacity or preparedness.