Sub-National Shelter/NFI Cluster Meeting for KR-I – 10/12/2014, Jouhayna Hotel, Erbil – Minutes

Chair

Jens Christensen – Sub-National Shelter/NFI Cluster Coordinator for KR-I

Action points

  • Cluster partners to complete winterisation reporting and pipeline reporting templates.
  • Cluster partners to update their contact information on the cluster contact directory.
  • Cluster to provide analysis on movement of IDPs between shelter types and governorates.
  • Cluster to share the shelter options document with cluster partners.

Agenda

  • Review of action points
  • DTM update
  • Operational Strategy
  • Contingency planning
  • Merging of SRP and 3RP indicators
  • AOB

Review of action points

  • More partners are asked to feed into the cluster reporting templates and contact directory.
  • Lack of reporting could be brought up at the HCT level if needed.
  • DRC is organising EMMA workshops, the on-going EMMA is mainly focused on food security.
  • A small EMMA on shelter is included in the Shelter for Life report that is available on the cluster website (
  • The contingency planning exercise for KR-I will be linked up with on-going contingency planning at national level, including refugee contingency planning.
  • The online technical resource library has been started, partners are asked to give feedback and suggest additions and gaps, particularly at regional and national level.

DTM update

  • The situation in Dahuk is stable; Sulaymaniyah and Erbil keep seeing light increases. The number of IDPs includes those in disputed areas in Ninewa and Diyala.
  • The movement of IDPs between shelter types and governorates should be included in future analyses.
  • As long as there is no registration, IDP figures remain estimates.
  • The recent movement of IDPs out of schools is not yet reflected in the presented DTM figures.

Operational Strategy

  • The strategy is still being worked on,it should be ready in a couple of days.
  • There is support from the Global Shelter Cluster in drafting the strategy, this is a change from the trend where country-level clusters have complained about lack of support from Geneva.
  • Objectives are around quantitative coordination, qualitative coordination, cross-cutting coordination, transitional coordination and partnership coordination.
  • Contingency planning would fall under both quantitative coordination and partnership coordination.
  • Most activities are already ongoing, shelter options to be sent out to all partners.
  • Transitional strategy is included in the national strategy, there is a need to do more forward planning to avoid delayed responses to seasonal variations and prevent repetitive costs.
  • Split-planning could be considered for immediate needs, medium-term needs and exit strategy at the same time?

Contingency planning

  • OCHA is already undertaking a scenario mapping exercise, this is meant to feed into this process.
  • Information on contingency planning will be organised into a matrix, next week’s Erbil coordination meeting will be around contingency planning.
  • A column on political factors and the likelihood of an impact should be added, with for instance another influx from Mosul as a scenario.
  • Scenario planning for refugees has already been undertaken.

Merging of SRP and 3RP indicators

  • At the advice of UNHCR Geneva, SRP and 3RP indicators will be aligned as much as possible to allow for easier comparison of responses at national and regional level and make it easier for partners to report.
  • UNHCR-led clusters have started the process of alignment already, other clusters are expected to follow.
  • The idea of aligning indicators also came up during the planning process in June.
  • There is quite a strong push at the moment for this to be implemented, also from donors.

AOB

  • Some shelter actors in Dahuk planned to do shelter interventions outside of camps, but IDPs were moved into camps before they could start their work. How should the cluster react to this as it could mean that resources are wasted?
  • Rehabilitation versus sealing off is an important distinction, with a mobile IDP population non-durable solutions such as sealing off are more important and realistic rather than rehabilitation of buildings.
  • IDPS that are moved might prefer their current shelter and other IDPs might be in more need, however, the government seems to have changed its attitude towards providing shelter assistance to IDPs in unfinished buildings since there is still space in camps.
  • In terms of winterisation gaps, it would be good to know the distribution between camp and non-camp locations.
  • More clarity on fuel distribution plans of the government is needed, buying fuel at market rates seems to be out of the question, in which case distributing fuel would be up to the government alone.

Participants

ACTED, DFID, ERC, IOM, IVY, NRC, Shelter for Life, Solidarites International, UNHCR