Review of preliminary phase classifications for JIAG workshop in Geneva next week
Difficult to come up with detailed area classification criteria in 1 week
How can we take the work on the vulnerability framework to come up with brief, preliminary phase
Maybe as a starting point, what are the core components to be considered for a phase description. For example:
CRITICAL(Phase 5): No availability of or access to adequate shelters, limited prospect for recovery(for example, unable to return, markets not functional to access building materials), aggravating settlement factors(such as climate, lack of governance, high waves of displacement, etc.) secondary impacts of lack of shelter such as mortality due to climatic conditions
MINIMAL(Phase 1): Majority of population is able to access adequate shelter(threshold and criteria TBD) without engaging in any negative shelter coping strategies
Alternatively, using the factor types of our matrix as a component for the phase description- to be explored
Renee & Hannoa to share description of the other three phases with the group to review/ reformulate suggestions next week
Review of the workplan - Main result 3.G.1.9 to be added to the Workplan
The cross-pollination with PSB and Urban WGs was considered vital.
Neil to review workplan one more time and circulate before Monday
Results of the polling exercise for the sub-factors were discussed and how to proceed to flesh out the Dimension and Class mapping matrix. Key to make sure that we stick purely with shelter indicators and that we drop a lot of indicators that could be covered in more detail with other sectors(Protection and WASH)The exercise really highlighted that we are still thinking with a lens of beneficiary selection and that we need to focus more on the macro level. It is proposed to reduce considerably the factors to the most essential shelter vulnerabilities. Maybe some more reflection is needed to distinguish/weight differently factors that are relevant for more“immediate”(life threatening?) shelter vulnerabilities vs more long term/underlying vulnerabilities.
Some more thought needed to define out“measuring stick” or benchmark and develop a new ranking/rating scale.
How do we ensure that it also reflect the humanitarian nature of the work?
It is proposed to trial run a historical response to come up with a ranking of factors for those responses.
Testing out the factors with country-level clusters was also proposed.
Discussed briefly the survey monkey polling exercise(see action points for next week below)
Neil provided update on progress made with Cecilia on physical vulnerability part of the matrix
Promoting Safer Building WG working on a method to classify building typologies to determine physical vulnerability
Consider separating out structural vulnerability of dwelling vs. more broadly vulnerability of physical assets(Cecila currently in workshop with WG, can discuss once back about overlaps/ collaborating)
Keeping focused on shelter & housing!
Need to put together 2019 work-plan for SAG
Action points/ next week:
a. Next group call potentially on Friday(time TBC?)
Everyone to complete factor ranking survey monkey prior to next call(at least Wednesday)
Renee to add field to(1) provide name of respondent in survey(2) specify while ranking which factor is contextual vs. more generic
Based on survey results, need to discuss the balance between what is feasible/ realistic with a global measure vs. more contextual factors
Neil to potentially ask someone from the PSB WG to present to this WG about their work so far