SHELTER DURABLE SOLUTIONS EVALUATION Halaboqad

Transcription

SHELTER DURABLE SOLUTIONS EVALUATION
Halaboqad, Salama One, and Tawakal
GAALKACYO – SOMALIA
December 2014
www.sheltercluster.org
CONTENTS
Summary.............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology........................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Evaluation Findings ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Shelter Response ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Shelter Type & Materials ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Shelter Improvement .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Shelter Needs ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Housing, Land, & Property ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Land Ownership.................................................................................................................................................... 11
Land & Shelter Use............................................................................................................................................... 12
Access to Services & Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Settlement Plans................................................................................................................................................... 12
Access to Water.................................................................................................................................................... 13
Sanitation .............................................................................................................................................................. 14
Markets ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Shelter Density ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Local Integration & Livelihoods....................................................................................................................................... 16
Motivations for Moving .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Intentions .............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Involvement in PLanning Processes ..................................................................................................................... 17
Involvement in Construction Processes ................................................................................................................ 17
Local Authority Engagement................................................................................................................................. 18
Local Community Engagements ........................................................................................................................... 18
Informal Resident Interactions .............................................................................................................................. 18
Livelihoods ............................................................................................................................................................ 18
Safety, Protection, & Security .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Physical Safety ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Market & Facility Locations ................................................................................................................................... 21
Shelter At Night..................................................................................................................................................... 21
Latrines ................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Settlement Lighting ............................................................................................................................................... 22
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................ 24
REACH is joint initiative of IMPACT Initiatives, ACTED and UNOSAT. Since 2011 REACH has formalized a
partnership with the Global Shelter Cluster (GSC) to support the strengthening of its coordination and planning
capacity. Dedicated REACH teams (including assessment, database and mapping experts) are available to be
rapidly deployed to the field in the emergencies in order to facilitate interagency assessments and mapping
activities on behalf of the shelter cluster. Resulting information products are used to enable better planning and
coordination by the cluster, and are widely disseminated. For more information, see: www.reach-initiative.org. You
can write to us directly at [email protected] and follow us @REACH-info.
SUMMARY
Gaalkacyo is the capital of the north-central Mudug region of Somalia. The city is divided into two zones, where
the main northern portion forms part of Puntland state, while its southern tip is governed by the Galmudug
administration. This evaluation focuses on three permanent settlements to the north of Gaalkacyo Town. The
three permanent settlements are located within 5 kilometres of each other and approximately 8-10 kilometres
north of Gaalkacyo town. The permanent shelter programs have delivered a total of 1,256 permanent houses,
home to an estimated 10,000 IDP residents. In addition, an estimated 20,632 individuals have relocated to the
settlement areas, half of whom are thought to have settled informally in and around the permanent structures.
REACH was requested by the Global and Somalia Shelter Clusters to conduct an evaluation in the IDP
settlements of Halaboqad, Salama One, and Tawakal outside Gaalkacyo Town. In order to achieve this, a
household survey, key informant interviews, and community discussions were organised. The household survey
employed a 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval for each of the permanent settlements based on
the number of permanent houses built in each settlement. A total of 622 households were interviewed in April
2014 by trained enumerators. This was complemented by key informant interviews and discussions with
community members. Data was also available from a REACH-facilitated Shelter Review assessment conducted
in Gaalkacyo Town in the weeks just prior to the evaluation.
Overall, the evaluation suggests that the permanent shelter programme in the three settlements outside of
Gaalkacyo Town – Salama One, Halaboqad, and Tawakal – has successfully provided beneficiaries with high
quality housing that protects inhabitants from the elements and serves as a secure shelter for the household.
Furthermore, there is a clear desire from households residing in the permanent houses to further improve and
develop their homes beyond the current structure that was provided to them. Household needs have shifted from
a focus on basic shelter to financial and livelihood support to further invest in their land and home. These are
both strong indicators of the sustainability of the housing project. Households also report a strong relationship
with the local community and good dispute management mechanisms that will serve them well into the future.
The evaluation found that very few beneficiaries were involved in the construction process and lack the skills
necessary to maintain their own shelter or contribute to the development of the settlement. This is a missed
opportunity as involvement or management of the construction process can provide a form of livelihood training
and lead to improved maintenance of infrastructure after the completion of the program. Furthermore, the lack of
a clear settlement plan with the needed space to develop infrastructure such as schools, markets, and hospitals
could undercut the successes of the housing programme, as households begin to need more services and are
unable to access them.
The permanent housing programme in Gaalkacyo is an example of a highly successful delivery-based housing
programme in which higher quality housing was provided to the beneficiaries. This delivery-based and
contractor-driven approach that is currently preferred by implementing partners in Somalia due to difficult access,
clan-based tensions, political support and lack of existing capacity, however, limits household investment. The
Shelter Cluster should continue to push towards owner decision making processes where the shelters can be
built by the beneficiaries themselves, while taking a settlement-based approach that ensures there is ample room
for settlement growth and that basic services are provided throughout the life of the settlement.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
3Ws
Who, What, Where (matrix summarising which actor is undertaking what type of interventions
in each geographical area affected by the emergency and targeted for the relief response)
CGI
Corrugated Galvanised Iron
DRC
Danish Refugee Council
DRR
Disaster Risk Reduction
DS
Durable Solutions
FGD
Focus Group Discussion
GIS
Geographical Information Systems
GPS
Global Positioning System
GSC
Global Shelter Cluster
HLP
Housing Land and Property Rights
IASC
Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IDP
Internally Displaced Person
IFRC
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IOM
International Organisation for Migration
KII
Key Informant Interview
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
NRC
Norwegian Refugee Council
SOP
Standard Operating Framework
USD
US Dollars
WASH
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
GEOGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATION
Region
Highest form of governance below the national level
District
Second highest form of governance
Town
An area formed of 10,000 voters; the lowest administrative boundary
Planned Settlements
Neighbourhood or area that is informal and not classified for administrative purposes
FIGURES AND TABLES
Table 1: Number of Households Sampled .............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 1: Permanent housing at Halaboqad and Tawakal ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: The physical condition of permanent housing .......................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Households shelter improvements per settlement ................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Households’ most suggested forms of shelter improvement.................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Top three issues ranked by residents .................................................................................................... 10
Figure 6: Percentage of residents with land title deeds vs. percentage reporting they feel secure on their land .. 11
Figure 7: Shelter distance to water-points ............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 8: Shelter distance to latrines..................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Shelter density across the settlements .................................................................................................. 15
Figure 10: Intentions of planned settlement beneficiaries and informal settlers over the next 6 months .............. 17
Figure 11: Main sources of income ....................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 12: Households’ main obstacles to local integration .................................................................................. 20
Figure 13: Households that do not fear for their physical safety within the settlements ........................................ 21
Figure 14: Household protection concerns in the settlement ................................................................................ 22
Figure 15: Location of solar lamp posts .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
INTRODUCTION
Gaalkacyo is the capital of the north-central Mudug region of Somalia. The city is divided into two zones, where
the main northern portion forms part of Puntland state, while its southern tip is governed by the Galmudug
administration. This evaluation focuses on three permanent settlements to the north of Gaalkacyo Town. The
three permanent settlements are located within 5 kilometres of each other and approximately 8-10 kilometres
north of Gaalkacyo Town. The permanent shelter programs have delivered a total of 1,256 permanent houses,
home to an estimated 10,000 IDP residents. In addition, an estimated 20,632 individuals have relocated to the
settlement areas, half of whom are thought to have settled informally in and around the permanent structures. In
addition, four community centres, a police station and brick-making facilities were provided at the Tawakal site
and a primary school was built for residents at Halaboqad.
All three sites are located on private land and are overseen by the Puntland government, which was closely
involved in all stages of the program cycle from planning and design of the projects to implementation and finally
the hand-over of official land tenure documentation. The settlement residents are represented by community
settlement committees and the sites have been divided into grids with community-elected officials providing
oversight and management to each section, including engagement with the landowner and local authority when
necessary.
Land tenure is one of three components considered crucial to durable solutions, the other two are community
participation and sustainable livelihoods. These form the basis of the cluster strategy. The initiative formed part of
a durable solutions shelter approach advocated by UNHCR and implemented by Danish Refugee Council (DRC),
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and UN-Habitat. Prior to the implementation of the planned settlements, a
number of IDP households and host community members in Halaboqad and Tawakal had already acquired their
own land deeds or relocated to the planned settlement sites showing a strong willingness to integrate locally. The
beneficiary selection process varied across the settlements, but to ensure local community integration,
approximately 10-20% of project beneficiaries were reportedly selected from the host community, a majority of
whom already owned land on which their permanent shelters were constructed.
REACH was requested by the Global and Somalia Shelter Clusters to conduct an evaluation in the IDP
settlements of Halaboqad, Salama One, and Tawakal outside Gaalkacyo Town. In order to achieve this, a
household survey, key informant interviews, and community discussions were organised. The household survey
employed a 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval for each of the permanent settlements based on
the number of permanent houses built in each settlement. A total of 622 households were interviewed in April
2014 by trained enumerators. This was complemented by key informant interviews and discussions with
community members. Data was also available from a REACH-facilitated Shelter Review assessment conducted
in Gaalkacyo Town in the weeks just prior to the evaluation.
The report provides detailed programmatic information and to share with a broad audience a concise overview of
the current shelter situation in this area. The evaluation report is organised into clear sections intended to guide
the reader through the most important information. The key sections include: (1) shelter response, (2) housing,
land, and property, (3) access to service and facilities, (4) local integration and livelihoods, and (5) safety,
protection, and security.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used for this evaluation consisted of three modes of data collection and analysis: (1) secondary
data review; (2) remote sensing and geospatial analysis; and, (3) primary data collection, including infrastructure
mapping, key informant interviews (KII), household surveys, and focus group discussions.
A desk review and preliminary analysis of satellite imagery was first conducted by the assessment team in
Nairobi and Mogadishu. The secondary data review focused on relevant program documents including project
proposals, reports and logical frameworks. The results of the secondary data review were used to inform the
development of tools and methodologies and later in the workflow, to verify household responses and to inform
the development of suitable recommendations.
Analysis of high-resolution satellite imagery by UNOSAT identified different shelter types in the settlements.
Maps derived from this analysis were, in the initial phases of the work, used to inform the planning and
implementation of the ground assessments; in particular, they were used to confirm secondary data results and
derive sample sizes, as well as in the production of assessment navigation maps. Later on, the maps were also
used during the training of enumerators and implementation of field assessments. Each team was given a set of
maps for the settlements with target areas and sample sizes highlighted as guidance.
The primary data collection was conducted at the end of April 2014, immediately after the tri-cluster baseline
assessment of 11 informal settlements in Gaalkacyo town. The assessment team collaborated with cluster
member agencies to conduct primary data collection, starting with infrastructure mapping of the entire settlement
sites as well as KIIs with settlement leaders and other stakeholders. This was followed by a statisticallyrepresentative household survey of each settlement and direct observation analysis of shelters and other assets.
The household survey employed a 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval at the permanent settlement
level. This means that we can be 95% confident that averages or proportions observed in the sample for each
settlement are accurate for the population of interest, within a range of 5% above or below the stated value.
Results from each of the planned camps are also comparable to the informal settlement population living in
Gaalkacyo town, assessed as part of the tri-cluster assessment exercise.
Table 1: Number of Households Sampled
District
Halaboqad
Salama One
Tawakal
Sample
Collected
234
154
234
Estimated
Structures
948
329
1,302
Total Population
7,584
2,632
10,416
A series of focus group discussions were also held in each settlement as a final form of verification and to collect
additional qualitative information to supplement the household responses. The structure of the focus group tool
mirrored that of the household survey tool, with a section dedicated to key issues such as local authority
engagement, land tenure, protection and integration. Separate meetings were organised with the settlement
committee, and with male and female beneficiaries. Additional meetings were also held with informal settlers at
Tawakal and Halaboqad to assess their overall condition.
EVALUATION FINDINGS
SHELTER RESPONSE
These houses represent a significant improvement upon the shelters used by IDPs in spontaneous settlements
in Gaalkacyo Town. Furthermore, there is a clear desire from households residing in the permanent houses to
further improve and develop their homes beyond the current structure that was provided to them. Shelter
improvements alone may indicate investment in the property by the household, which may act as a proxy for
integration or conversely it may help to identify flaws or weaknesses in the current shelter design. Household
needs have shifted from a focus on basic shelter to financial and livelihood support to further invest in their land
and home. These are both strong indicators of the sustainability of the housing project.
However, the evaluation found that very few beneficiaries were involved in the construction process and lack the
skills necessary to maintain their own shelter or contribute to the development of the settlement. The outcome of
this can be seen in the results showing that 40% of structures in Halaboqad require some form of minor or major
repair, 73% in Tawakal and 18% in Salama One
SHELTER TYPE & MATERIALS
The majority of permanent houses were composed of concrete block or CGI and were classified as being in
‘good’ or ‘poor’ condition (as opposed to ‘bad’ or ‘uninhabitable’), thus were deemed to require no more than
small repairs. By comparison, IDPs in Gaalkacyo were living predominantly in short-term shelter options such as
transitional shelters (30%), buuls (24%) and tents (21%). The condition of these structures was considerably
worse, with 73% - 87% classified as requiring immediate humanitarian action. Common forms of wear and tear to
the doors and walls of shelters were reported across the settlements.
The permanent shelters at Halaboqad and Tawakal cover 23.5 square metres, consisting of one 16 square metre
room and one 7.5 square metre veranda. The structures were constructed with stone walls, mud mortar and
finished with cement rendering. The walls contain two steel windows with ventilation slots above each, while the
roof is composed of CGI sheets with white wood roof truss. The standard CGI structure is 4 x 4 metres and
consists of a wooden frame covered in iron sheeting with a simple pitched roof. In general, the shelters can be
easily dismantled and moved while the materials can be re-used or sold.
Figure 1: Permanent housing at Halaboqad and Tawakal
NRC - Halaboqad
UN-Habitat - Tawakal
As shown in Figure 2, the majority of permanent houses in Halaboqad (60%) and Salama One (82%) were
classified as being in good condition1, while the majority of houses in Tawakal were rated poor (69%). Only 38%
and 13% were rated poor in Halaboqad and Salama One respectively. These results suggest that between 2-5%
of structures in each settlement require major repair. One structure in Salama One was classified as
uninhabitable and needs replacing. Care must be taken when interpreting these results, however, due to the
subjective nature of the scoring; still they suggest 40% of structures in Halaboqad require some form of minor or
major repair, 73% in Tawakal and 18% in Salama One.
Figure 2: The physical condition of permanent housing
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Uninhabitable
50%
Bad
40%
Poor
30%
Good
20%
10%
0%
Halaboqad
Tawakal
Salama 1
SHELTER IMPROVEMENT
Across all three settlements, 37% of households are reported to have conducted shelter improvements. When
disaggregated by settlement, 60% and 40% of households in Salama One and Tawakal, respectively, have
conducted improvements while only 10% in Halaboqad reported to have done so. The type of shelter
improvement implemented varied per settlement as shown in Figure 3. A large number of households in Salama
One reported partitions (40%) and extensions (35%) respectively as the main improvements – this in line with the
transitional nature of the shelters there. Decoration and extension was most frequent in Tawakal; Halaboqad has
seen very few improvements, assumedly because of contentment with shelter rather than inability to conduct the
work necessary. The result that between 14-20% of settlement households have built additional structures and
that households’ have improved their structures can be seen as a proxy for integration.
Respondents reported that no construction materials were available at markets within the vicinity of Salama One,
while 8% of households reported knowledge of market access to materials at Tawakal and 18% at Halaboqad.
IDP intentions and ability to access shelter items on the market should be further explored by actors prior to any
cash distribution. Of households reporting improvements to their shelters, 63% reported bringing materials from
elsewhere; 25% and 13%, respectively, reported collecting the materials for free or purchasing locally.
Category 1 - Good condition, it offers protection from rain, offers appropriate privacy; Category 2 - Poor, prone to leakages,
need small repairs, materials worn; Category 3 - Bad condition - no security, no protection, needs major repair; Category 4 Uninhabitable - needs replacement
1
Figure 3: Households shelter improvements per settlement
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
Extension
20%
Partition
15%
Decoration
10%
5%
0%
Halaboqad
Salama 1
Tawakal
As for the desire for shelter improvements, a majority of households (70% to 74%) across the settlements
reported this desire. The improvements respondents felt necessary were fairly consistent across the settlements
with almost two-thirds requesting more space, half requesting better materials and half requesting better light.
Almost one-third requested better location – most likely linked to the large distances needed to travel for
livelihoods.
Figure 4: Households’ most suggested forms of shelter improvement
70%
60%
50%
Improved Location
40%
More Light
30%
Additional Space
20%
Better Shelter Materials
10%
0%
Halaboqad
Salama 1
Tawakal
SHELTER NEEDS
The majority of households across all three settlements (over 80%) identified temperature as a top three issue.
This is comparable to that reported by IDPs in Gaalkacyo. Residents of CGI housing in Salama One were also
more likely to rank wind, rain and thefts as a priority so these issues should be investigated further too. Space
was the second highest ranked issue at two of the settlements – with a room size of 16 square metres, 80% of
shelters in all three settlements were estimated to be providing less than the 3.5 square metres covered floor
space per person recommended by Sphere minimum standards. Further to this, only 20% of shelters had
partitions or separate sleeping spaces.
To explore residents’ satisfaction with their housing, respondents were provided with a list of eight possible
issues they were facing – encompassing climate, land, protection and privacy subjects - and were asked to
identify their top three. The percentage of households in each settlement that ranked the eight issues are
presented in Figure 5; it shows that temperature inside of shelters was a top three issue for over 80% of
respondents in all three settlements. Furthermore, almost 50% of households in each settlement rated
temperature their top issue. This is likely because of the CGI roofing used for all structures. This is comparable
but slightly lower than that reported by the IDP population, 89% of whom reported weather conditions (rain, heat
and cold) as the main shelter issue.
Percentage of respondents
Figure 5: Top three issues ranked by residents
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tawakal (Priority 3)
Salama (Priority 3)
Salama (Priority 2)
Salama (Priority 1)
Halaboqad (Priority 3)
Respondents living in CGI housing were twice as likely to highlight wind as a priority issue when compared with
occupants of concrete block homes: for example, two-thirds of respondents in Salama One reported wind as a
priority issue compared to 25% in Tawakal and 32% in Halaboqad. Rain was also ranked as an issue by a large
number of residents at Salama One (40%) and Tawakal (49%) but by fewer residents at Halaboqad (25%).
These results don’t completely correlate with the direct observation results; enumerators reported that shelters
with daylight visible through gaps in the shelter were more common in Halaboqad (38%) and Tawakal (27%)
compared to Salama One (4%). The reason so many houses at Tawakal were rated poor and vulnerable to the
effects of rain should be investigated further.
While space was not identified by many as a top priority, it was the second highest ranked issue overall in
Halaboqad and Tawakal. With a room size of 16 square metres 80% of shelters were estimated to be providing
less than the 3.5 square metres covered floor space per person recommended by Sphere standards. These
conditions are not sufficient in the long term.
Privacy was reported as an issue for approximately 40% of respondents of each settlement, which is comparable
to that reported by the IDP population (30%). Direct observation found that separate sleeping spaces were found
in only 10-23 % of shelters: Halaboqad (23%), Tawakal (17%) and Salama One (10%). Considering the high
density of people living in the main structures, this suggests many households are living in cramped conditions
with little privacy. To ensure the shelters remain suitable in the long term, agencies must monitor the numbers of
people using the main structures and the room arrangements within the shelters.
When asked what would be most useful to meet their immediate needs, 89% of IDP households in the planned
settlements chose financial backing instead of technical, physical or protection forms of support. Less than 4% of
respondents in each settlement requested technical support or tools. When disaggregated by settlement,
households in Tawakal (91%) and Halaboqad (90%) reported the need for financial support, while 85% in
Salama One reported the same. In comparison, 75% of informal settlers in Gaalkacyo town ranked their
immediate need to be financial support and 22% requested some form of shelter support. This suggests that
needs in the planned settlements have transitioned from emergency to more of a focus on durable solutions.
HOUSING, LAND, & PROPERTY
The provision of secure land tenure is expected to contribute towards levels of integration and the overall
economic security of a household. In the planned settlements of Gaalkacyo, 90% of households reported to be
the original beneficiaries and 98% of households reported not paying rent. This has lowered household shelter
expenditure considerably compared to informal settlers in Gaalkacyo, who reported paying 11 USD 2. The fact
that all settlements have been provided with permanent land tenure and that expenditures on housing are lower
has likely had a direct impact on the housing improvements discussed above and the overall progression toward
integration discussed below.
LAND OWNERSHIP
A significant output of the durable solutions approach is the provision of land tenure, which in-turn is expected to
contribute towards integration and security of tenure. 90% of households in the settlements reported to be the
original beneficiaries and owners of the plot and 98% of households reported not to be paying rent on the land
they occupy. This represents a significant improvement compared to the IDP population in Gaalkacyo, 81% of
whom have no land tenure agreement and 87% who reported were paying rent on the land they occupy.
Land tenure documents had been handed-over completely in Tawakal and Halaboqad but not yet in Salama
One. The majority of households (94% and 96%, respectively) in Tawakal and Halaboqad reported to be in
possession of permanent land certificates while a low number (12%) in Salama One reported the same. Despite
this, residents at Salama One were no more likely to report they’d faced the threat of eviction – on average 10%
of beneficiaries had said they’d faced an eviction threat. Fewer respondents in Salama One did report feeling
secure on their land (63%) though, compared to both Halaboqad (79%) and Tawakal (74%).
Figure 6: Percentage of residents with land title deeds versus percentage reporting they feel secure on their land
120
100
80
Possession of title deeds
60
Consider Home
Feel Secure on Land
40
20
0
Halaboqad
2
Salama One
Tawakal
The regularity of the payment was not reported.
LAND & SHELTER USE
Most beneficiaries were likely to own one structure only. Over three-quarters of respondents reported they
occupied one shelter; between 14-20% in each settlement occupy two shelters and between 4-7% of occupants
in Salama One and Tawakal occupy three shelters.
The most commonly reported use of households’ main shelter is to host friends and family. 70% of households
reported hosting other family members in their house or on their property while 19% confirmed hosting friends. A
very low number (4%) of households reported charging rents; similarly, only a low number of respondents
reported to have knowledge of other shelter owners in the settlements selling (10%) or renting (14%) their
shelters. The results show that beneficiaries are more likely to support family members than charge rent for
income.
Very few of the additional structures were used for covered living space. Approximately two-thirds of second
shelters were reported to be used for the kitchen, the rest were used for children or animals. Households with
more than two shelters tended to use the third structure for animals. It’s important that the settlement
committee’s monitor the number of people currently living in the main structures. If household size continues to
grow agencies could assess the feasibility of adding additional housing structures to beneficiaries’ plots.
The majority of households (58% and 63%, respectively) in Halaboqad and Tawakal reported to raise animals on
their land while a smaller number (18%) in Salama One reported the same. Across the settlements, the majority
of households (82-92%) did not grow crops. This can be attributed to the harsh climate and common clan
livelihood practices.
ACCESS TO SERVICES & FACILITIES
Access to critical infrastructure and the ability for settlements to build missing infrastructure is limited in the
planned settlements of Gaalkacyo. The evaluation found that very few beneficiaries were involved in the
construction process and lack the skills necessary to maintain their own shelter or contribute to the development
of the settlement. This is a missed opportunity, as involvement or management of the construction process can
provide a form of livelihood training and lead to improved maintenance of infrastructure after the completion of
the program. Furthermore, the lack of a clear settlement plan with the needed space to develop infrastructure
such as schools, markets, and hospitals could undercut the successes of the housing programme, as
households begin to need more services and are unable to access them.
SETTLEMENT PLANS
Despite the continued interaction with local authorities reported at Halaboqad and Salama One, settlement
committees at all three settlements reported not knowing about the existence of a settlement plan. It is important
for the sustainable development of the settlements going-forward that a plan is developed and updated for each
settlement. The plan should identify existing services and facilities, followed by gap analysis and a plan on where
and when those may be developed in the short and long-term. Despite the lack of settlement plans in Gaalkacyo,
there does appear to have been minimal informal settlement in public space. Infrastructure maps are available at
the back of this report – they show very little open space for development within the settlements themselves. UNHabitat reported that the concept of reserving land for the development of future public facilities was difficult to
adopt due predominantly to the high pressure for land.
ACCESS TO WATER
The amount of water available, the distance travelled to collect water and the amount of money paid by residents
for water is similar in all three planned settlements to the responses provided by vulnerable households settled
informally in Gaalkacyo town. On average, 58 litres of water were available at the household level per day.
Settlement mapping indicated the majority (88%) of water points were located on private land; with most waterpoints likely owned by the local community - as a result, 94% of households reported paying for water, at an
average payment of 2 USD for 20 litres.
The main source of water across the settlements varied. A high proportion of residents (67% and 46%,
respectively) in Halaboqad and Salama One reported access to water through water kiosks. Conversely, 67% of
households in Tawakal reported access to water through other piped water systems. This correlates well with the
water mapping exercise, which identified water kiosks and taps as the main water source in Halaboqad and
Salama One and Burkads and taps as the main water source in Tawakal. The majority of households (89%)
reported their main water source to be reliable and 3% reported the water source to be very reliable. 8% reported
the source to be unreliable. Likewise, ground assessments reported that 84% of water points were functioning.
The majority of water sources that were reported to be unreliable were water kiosks.
Respondents in Salama One and Tawakal reported spending an average of 5 minutes walking to reach their
main water source while an average of 12 minutes walking was reported by respondents in Halaboqad. As
shown in Figure 7, this is consistent with spatial analysis which demonstrates that 231 shelters (22%) in
Halaboqad were beyond 100 metres of the nearest water point compared to only 3% of shelters in Salama One
and 0% in Tawakal. The majority of shelters beyond 100 metres of the water points in Halaboqad are located in
the south-east corner of the site.
Figure 7: Shelter distance to water-points
The collectors of water are predominantly adult females. 48% and 31% of respondents, respectively, reported
collecting drinking water two or three times a day, while 15% reported collecting drinking water one time per day.
Respondents in Salama One and Tawakal reported waiting an average of three minutes at water points.
Respondents in Halaboqad reported an average of 9 minutes. This is again consistent with infrastructure
mapping which suggests there are more people per water point in Halaboqad than the other two sites. Spatial
analysis estimates there were 889 people per functioning water point in Halaboqad, 658 people per water-point
in Salama One and only 24 people per water-point in Tawakal.
Jerry-cans were by far the most commonly used container-type throughout the settlements. 91% of households
reported they use the same container for storage and transport. 95% use the same container for drinking and
washing. Household reasons for re-use of containers and linkages to disease and outbreak must be further
explored by WASH actors.
SANITATION
All shelters at Halaboqad and Salama One were mapped to within 50 metres of a latrine. A pit latrine was
provided with every house in Halaboqad along with communal latrines throughout the main site. Household
latrines were also evenly distributed throughout Salama One. In Tawakal, there were a very small number of
houses on the edge of the site that were more than 50 metres away from the nearest latrine. Allocation of latrines
in these areas should be further explored.
The majority of latrines in all settlements were marked as functional: 86% in Halaboqad, 86% in Salama One and
90% Tawakal. The main reason given for latrines not being functional was that they were full.
Figure 8: Shelter distance to latrines
The majority of latrines mapped in each settlement were reported to be separated by gender (94% Halaboqad;
98% Tawakal; 67% in Salama One). The small number of latrines that weren’t disaggregated by gender were
mainly private household latrines in Salama One. While the majority of latrines were private in Salama One
(99%) and Tawakal (97%), almost half of latrines in Halaboqad were communal. Furthermore, while more than
93% of latrines in Salama One and Tawakal provided locks on the inside and outside of latrines, locks were less
prevalent in Halaboqad (75% provide locks on the outside and 78% on the inside).
MARKETS
There were varying reports in regards to access to markets: 61% of households in Halaboqad reported access to
adequate markets while a low number (27%) in Tawakal reported the same. 100% of households in Samala
One reported no access to markets. This is directly attributed to the lack of a market within Salama One. Five
markets were identified at Halaboqad with 24 vendors at the main market.
Households with access to markets reported an average distance of 10 minutes on foot to the closest one. This
varied slightly between Tawakal and Halaboqad where households reported an average distance of 7 to 12
minutes on foot, respectively. Of these, households reported grains (83%), vegetables (95%), pulses/beans
(93%), meat/fish (95%) and construction materials (30%) to be available.
SHELTER DENSITY
The Tawakal site provides an estimated 50 square metres surface area per person overall, but as demonstrated
in figure 15 many of the structures are concentrated in the centre of the site. Salama One and Halaboqad provide
29 square metres and 26 square metres per person respectively; this is less than the 45 square metres usable
surface area per person recommended by Sphere. This lack of open space will likely impact how the settlements
will be able to develop in the future. Specifically, there are very few open spaces in the centre of all three
settlements where additional facilities may be constructed when deemed necessary – to do so, would likely
require the relocation of residents.
Figure 9: Shelter density across the settlements
LOCAL INTEGRATION & LIVELIHOODS
Local integration and livelihoods are two of the most important aspects of a durable shelter solution. In addition,
community participation in both the planning and construction processes is increasingly recognised as an
important component of durable solutions. Participation in settlement planning and decision-making was reported
at all three settlements and is expected to lead to increased ownership of the process and continued sustainable
and safe development after the end of the interventions. However, nearly all households assessed reported not
being a part of the construction process, which is a missed opportunity for further skills building and further
ownership of the settlement process. This delivery-based and contractor-driven approach that is currently
preferred by implementing partners in Somalia due to difficult access, clan-based tensions, political support and
lack of existing capacity, limits household investment.
Building solid relations with the local host community, authorities and informal settlers is important to ensure the
settlements and surrounding areas remain sustainable and peaceful. Beneficiaries demonstrated a promising
trend towards conflict resilience and peace building. This was achieved through organized dialogue with local
communities, local authorities and the formation of informal settlement committees. A low number (<3%) of
households reported a poor relationship with the host community.
The majority of residents in all three settlements reported an intention to stay, which strongly supports the case
for overall contentment and satisfaction. The intention to stay permanently was lower at Salama One. The
priorities reported by residents at Salama One were predominantly shelter-related rather than associated with the
lack of land tenure there; this suggests issues with CGI shelters may be contributing to lower levels of
satisfaction. The main obstacles to local integration at all settlements were access to livelihoods and services.
Generally, residents in the planned settlements reported wanting to stay more because of pull factors rather than
push factors; suggesting that with further investment in livelihoods durable solutions will likely be reached.
MOTIVATIONS FOR MOVING
When asked for their main motivation for moving to the permanent settlements, a high number of households
(43%) reported access to livelihoods, while 20% reported relocation for improved security. Nearly one-third (32%)
reported receipt of permanent shelter their main motivation for relocation. This is consistent with focus group
discussions, which suggests the majority of informal settlers relocated to the permanent settlements for improved
security, livelihood opportunities and land tenure. This explains some of the expectations of the beneficiaries and
in particular, some of the possible push and pull factors for these projects.
INTENTIONS
Respondents showed strong intentions to stay in their current locations. When asked whether they intended to
stay, relocate or return in the next 6 months the majority intend to stay: 89% in Salama One, 98% in Tawakal and
80% in Halaboqad. Approximately 5% said they planned to return to their place of origin and another 5% said
they planned to relocate (within the district). Of those that planned to return to their place of origin, 16% said
they would do so under any condition. It is recommended that shelter actors further explore the reasons for these
households not being able to return.
As demonstrated in figure 8, beneficiaries in the planned settlements are much more likely to want to settle
compared to the IDPs living in Gaalkacyo; only 58% of Gaalkacyo IDPs planned to remain in their current
location and of those only 30% reported a willingness to remain in their current location permanently.
Figure 10: Intentions of planned settlement beneficiaries and informal settlers over the next 6 months
100
90
% of respondents
80
70
60
40
Planned Settlement
Beneficiaries
30
Informal Settlers
50
20
10
0
Remain in
present
location
Return to Relocate (in Relocate
place of
same
(outside
origin
district)
district)
In a separate question posed to planned settlement households, 92% reported their intention was to remain in
their present location longer than one year. But while 98% of residents in Halaboqad and Tawakal intended to
stay for more than one year, only 74% answered the same in Salama One. Similarly, fewer residents at Salama
One considered it their home (81%), compared to 89% at Tawakal and 92% at Halaboqad. The reasons for this
discrepancy are unclear, but it may be attributed to the use of CGI shelters or the lack of land tenure at Salama
One at the time of the assessment. When respondents at Salama One were asked to provide their top 3
priorities, the main responses were all shelter-related: weather, privacy and space. Only 14% of respondents
included ‘land’ issues as a top priority. This suggests that issues with CGI structures could be leading to overall
lower levels of satisfaction at Salama One.
INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING PROCESSES
Key informants reported that beneficiaries were offered the opportunity to engage in beneficiary selection and
settlement planning. The process in Halaboqad reportedly used a community-based selection process involving
local authorities as well as a series of participatory meetings with the host community. Beneficiaries were also
involved in the house design process. Residents at Tawakal attended a strategic planning workshop at the start
of the project, which was used to revise the number of basic housing units and to identify additional project
components that were later implemented including 1) the development of four community centres; 2) tree
planting and landscaping for individual houses and public spaces; and 3) brick making training and production.
INVOLVEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES
While there was reported participation in the planning process, the greater proportion of residents were said not
to have been engaged in the construction of shelters. Work was apparently contracted out to two or three
companies at both Tawakal and Halaboqad. UN-Habitat did report providing limited on-the-job training and brickmaking machinery to laborers from the Tawakal IDP community. The continued use of these livelihood assets
and skills was not verified during this assessment though. Contractor-driven approaches are currently the
preferred labour assistance in Somalia due to difficult access, clan-based tensions, political support and existing
capacity.
There appears to be a missed opportunity engaging households in construction, but an opportunity that can be
regained moving forward. The Shelter Cluster should continue to push towards owner decision making
processes where the shelters can be built by the beneficiaries themselves, but only when sufficient skills or
training are available and disaster risk reduction measures are understood and integrated into traditional building
techniques. Beneficiaries told us that they would like to have been involved in administrative tasks and the
design of structures as well as site planning and recruitment of staff.
LOCAL AUTHORITY ENGAGEMENT
Focus group discussions with settlement committees and beneficiaries confirmed regular (weekly or monthly)
interaction with the local authority at Halaboqad and Salama One while in Tawakal, interaction with the local
authority was reported to be limited, despite the local authorities being fully engaged during the implementation
process. The committees’ main issues of engagement were land issues, local integration and protection.
Interactions between local authorities, settlement committees and beneficiaries have yielded, among other
things, resource protection and an increased feeling of security. Sustained engagement with the local authorities
is important for the continued development of the settlement.
LOCAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS
According to satellite image analysis approximately 12%-13% of the population in Halaboqad and Salama One
belonged to local communities established outside of the settlement. In general, very good relations with the
local community were reported by settlement committees and beneficiaries. 84% of all households reported that
they interacted with the local community. Of these, 87%-98% reported those interactions to be positive. A low
number (<3%) of households across the settlements reported a bad relationship with the host community and
less than 6% reported explicit issues. The difficulties reported by these households were mainly related to
robbery and fighting.
The main form of communication with the local community was reportedly different in each settlement. Despite
the presence of a community centre inside of Halaboqad, Tawakal was the only settlement to report interactions
in a community centre. Instead, the majority of households in Halaboqad reported interactions at the market
(78%), while a smaller number of households in Salama One and Tawakal reported the same (33% and 40%,
respectively). This suggests the central market area in Halaboqad acts as a form of ‘hub’ for both residents and
the local community and has been a positive initiative for community relations. Residents at Salama One and
Tawakal reported that interactions with the local community also took place in their homes (47% and 27%
respectively).
INFORMAL RESIDENT INTERACTIONS
Positive interactions were reported between the informal settlers and residents in the settlements. FGDs confirm
regular (weekly) meetings between settlement committees to address issues of land tenure and protection.
Anecdotal evidence also suggests these meetings have supported integration efforts through the receipt of
humanitarian items in the informal settlement areas. Additionally, evidence suggests the presence of informal
settlements has increased trading and livelihood activities within the settlement. A baseline survey of the informal
settlement populations is recommended to better understand their condition and intentions for the future.
LIVELIHOODS
Interviews with key informants confirmed the receipt of dressing, sewing and tailoring livelihood training at the
settlements. In Halaboqad, additional training in mechanics was received, which was supported through the
distribution of three-wheel motor taxis or tuk-tuks.
The results from the household survey suggest the main source of income for 36% of respondents is trading,
while 10% reported selling aid items and 8% acquired an income from the sale of property. This is similar to the
responses provided by IDPs living in Gaalkacyo town. Though more research is required to confirm this, the
results suggest a proportion of the population in Gaalkacyo and the planned settlements rely on the sale of aid or
other assets as a main source of income. Key informant responses suggest the majority of households have not
or do not practice the livelihood activities that were provided within the response package.
Figure 11: Main sources of income
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Halaboqad
Salama 1
Tawakal
According to focus group discussions, common obstacles to obtaining a job were lack of skills and education
across the settlements. Separately, transport was recorded as a main issue in Tawakal and Halaboqad. 60% of
households reported their current source of income to be outside the settlement at an average of 60 minutes
walking. When coupled with the findings above, this presents actors a clear opportunity to support permanent
resident’s livelihoods by increasing access to livelihoods and training within the settlements. Going forward,
actors must also consider the geographic location of settlements when designing future livelihoods projects.
39% of respondents reported that they were pastoralists prior to their first displacement, another 35% were
farmers or agro-pastoralists, while 30% were involved in trading and 24% in casual labour. The high number of
households reporting pastoral activities prior to displacement is consistent with known clan livelihoods. The
majority of households (58% and 63%, respectively) in Halaboqad and Tawakal reported raising animals on their
land while a smaller number (18%) in Salama One reported the same. Across the settlements, the majority of
households (82-92%) did not grow crops. Actors should take into account clan livelihoods and household skills
such as these when planning future livelihood activities.
Of those beneficiaries in planned settlements that intended to stay in the next 6 months, the main reasons given
were because they wanted to stay permanently (70%) and to continue receiving humanitarian assistance (56%).
Less than one-quarter of respondents said that lack of information or insecurity in their place of origin were
reasons why they wanted to remain. This suggests that residents in the planned settlements are interested in
staying due more to pull factors rather than push factors; suggesting that with further investment in livelihoods
durable solutions will likely be reached.
The majority of occupants reported the main obstacles to local integration as the lack of job opportunities (70%)
and lack of basic services (17%). As shown in Figure 12, lack of basic services was reported by 34% of
respondents at Tawakal as an obstacle to local integration, more than three-times the proportion of respondents
that reported the same at Halaboqod and Salama One. Only 0.4% at Tawakal felt land tenure issues were an
obstacle. Interestingly, most residents at Salama One did not seem to think that the lack of land tenure there was
an obstacle to local integration.
% of respondents
Figure 12: Households’ main obstacles to local integration
100
80
60
40
20
0
Halaboqad
Lack of Basic Services
Salama One
Job Opportunities
Tawakal
Land Tenure Issues
SAFETY, PROTECTION, & SECURITY
Protection and security is a key component of any shelter program, including those that contribute towards
durable solutions. IDP households perceive themselves to be safer in the planned settlements than those IDPs
living in Gaalkacyo Town, however there are key measures that need to be taken, particularly in Tawakal to
ensure continued safety. The majority of respondents reported feeling unsafe outside of settlement and going to
the market; a higher proportion reported feeling unsafe inside their shelter than those in Gaalkacyo – the
increased fear maybe due to the remoteness of the sites or the lack of police station (at Halaboqad).
PHYSICAL SAFETY
78% of respondents reported they did not fear for their physical safety within the settlements. As demonstrated in
figure 23, this varied only slightly between the settlements assessed. Halaboqad reported the highest sense of
physical safety within the settlement (89%), while the lowest was reported in Salama One (69%). These results
suggest a higher proportion of planned settlement residents feel secure in their settlements than IDPs do in the
informal settlements, 61% of whom reported not fearing for their physical safety.
The settlement committees reported having to deal with protection issues including eviction-related matters,
violence against children and gender-based violence. The main risks to children were apparently vehicle
accidents, unsafe objects and civil violence. Furthermore, the Tawakal committee also reported having to deal
with conflict with local militia. Focus group discussions with beneficiaries reported the main cause of death was
snakebites – mainly affecting children - and that the main protection concerns for women within the settlement
were rape or abuse. Fire was also reported at Tawakal and Salama One as well as cases of Malaria and
Cholera.
Figure 13: Households that do not fear for their physical safety within the settlements
100
80
60
40
20
0
Halaboqad
Salama 1
Tawakal
MARKET & FACILITY LOCATIONS
In Salama One - where the highest proportion of residents reported feeling insecure - the areas they reported
feeling unsafe were ‘outside of the settlement’ and ‘on the way to the market’. Two-thirds of residents at Salama
One reported feeling unsafe going to the market. Figure 11 shows the areas where residents reported feeling
unsafe.
In addition to this finding, almost 80% of respondents at Salama One reported feeling unsafe outside of the
settlement. While beneficiary FGDs at the other two settlements highlighted similar concerns about areas outside
of the settlement, fewer respondents at these settlements reported this as an area where they felt unsafe
(Tawakal, 44%, Halaboqad, 18%) – this might be because residents at Halaboqad and Tawakal are less reliant
on leaving their settlements to reach their nearest market or other key services.
SHELTER AT NIGHT
When compared to the informal settlement population in Gaalkacyo town, a higher proportion of households in
the permanent settlements reported to fear for their safety inside their shelter at night. A large proportion of
residents at Halaboqad (64%) and Tawakal (50%) felt unsafe in their own shelters at night despite the majority of
respondents there reporting having locks on the inside and outside of their doors (Halaboqad (97%) and Tawakal
(87%)). Only two-thirds of residents at Salama One reported having locks on doors; the majority of those who
didn’t have locks reported feeling unsafe inside their shelters.
The ‘feelings of insecurity in their shelters’ seems to correlate to the number of police stations at each settlement.
For example, the high feelings of insecurity at Halaboqad may be linked to the lack of a police station there.
Interestingly, the majority of residents at Salama One felt secure in their shelters where there were two police
stations. At Tawakal, there was only one police station identified. Furthermore, Halaboqad residents were also
the least likely to have a fence around their plot which might have contributed to feelings of unease there.
Residents were more likely to have a fence at Tawakal (59%) compared to Salama One (42%) and Halaboqad
(38%).
LATRINES
Over half of respondents at Halaboqad also reported feeling unsafe at the latrines. Almost all those reporting
‘feeling unsafe at latrines’ were users of communal latrines. 47% of the latrines in Halaboqad were communal
and 75% lacked locks. At Salama One and Tawakal, where latrines were almost all private, not as many
respondents reported feeling unsafe there. Actors should look to provide more private latrines – with internal
locks and lighting - at Halaboqad. Key informants at Tawakal also reported that women and children did not feel
safe at latrines – this is likely linked to the lack of internal locks and lighting there (see section below).
Figure 14: Household protection concerns in the settlement
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Halaboqad
Salama 1
Market
Latrine
Tawakal
Outside settlement
"On the way to the market"
On the way to school
Inside the shelter at night
SETTLEMENT LIGHTING
Households reported their primary source of light to be a torch or flashlight, only a small proportion of households
reported solar lights as their main light source. 39 solar lights were identified in Halaboqad with an additional 6
lights in the host community. The lights are distributed evenly across the site, though there are currently no lights
in the adjacent area for informal settlers. 10 lights were identified in Salama One but half of those are in the
south-east corner only. 14 lights were mapped in Tawakal – but because of the size of the site, there are many
areas that are likely to be unlit – this includes areas where latrines are placed. Furthermore, almost half of the
solar lights in Tawakal were not functioning. Actors should look at installing more solar lights throughout the sites
at Salama One and Tawakal. 59% of households in Tawakal and 53% in Salama One reported the need for more
light.
Protection issues, including thefts and violence were reported as top priority by 22% of the IDP population in
Gaalkacyo and 20% of respondents in Salama One. This is a high proportion of the population to be concerned
about protection and should be investigated further. In comparison, protection issues were reported as a top
priority by a lower proportion of respondents in Tawakal (6%) and Halaboqad (0.4%). The exact reasoning
behind there being less concern over protection in Tawakal and Halaboqad is unknown but could be attributed to
the stone structures people are living in.
CONCLUSION
Furthermore, there is a clear desire from households residing in the permanent houses to further improve and
develop their homes beyond the current structure that was provided to them. Household needs have shifted from
a focus on basic shelter to financial and livelihood support to further invest in their land and home. These are
both strong indicators of the sustainability of the housing project. Households also report a strong relationship
with the local community and good dispute management mechanisms that will serve them well into the future.
The evaluation found that very few beneficiaries were involved in the construction process and lack the skills
necessary to maintain their own shelter or contribute to the development of the settlement. This is a missed
opportunity as involvement or management of the construction process can provide a form of livelihood training
and lead to improved maintenance of infrastructure after the completion of the program. Furthermore, the lack of
a clear settlement plan with the needed space to develop infrastructure such as schools, markets, and hospitals
could undercut the successes of the housing programme, as households begin to need more services and are
unable to access them.
The permanent housing programme in Gaalkacyo is an example of a highly successful delivery-based housing
programme in which higher quality housing was provided to the beneficiaries. This delivery-based and
contractor-driven approach that is currently preferred by implementing partners in Somalia due to difficult access,
clan-based tensions, political support and lack of existing capacity, however, limits household investment. The
Shelter Cluster should continue to push towards owner decision making processes where the shelters can be
built by the beneficiaries themselves, while taking a settlement-based approach that ensures there is ample room
for settlement growth and that basic services are provided throughout the life of the settlement.
RECOMMENDATIONS










80% of shelters were estimated to be providing less than the 3.5 square metres recommended by
Sphere standards. These cramped conditions are not suitable for long term shelter solutions and should
be investigated further.
Appropriate land tenure agreements should be finalised and circulated before the completion of the
intervention to ensure beneficiaries feel secure on the land on which they are living.
Common forms of wear and tear to the doors and walls of shelters were reported across the
settlements. It is suggested that training is provided to the communities so they maintain their own
houses in a sustainable manner.
The majority of respondents reported no access to materials in near-by markets and had instead
brought materials from afar. IDP intentions and ability to access shelter items on the market should be
further explored by actors prior to any cash distribution.
Temperature of the shelters is a top priority for respondents and must be factored into any proposed
shelter design. Agencies should ensure beneficiaries are appropriately insulating their shelters against
the heat.
The Shelter Cluster should continue to push towards greater involvement of beneficiaries in decision
making processes, so that more beneficiaries are able to participate in the construction and
maintenance of their shelters.
Agencies should put in place contingency plans to assist informal settlers that might arrive prior to or
during the implementation of the project.
The maintenance of up-to-date settlement plans and engagement with relevant stakeholders should be
strongly encouraged to ensure the sustainable and safe development of the sites.
The main obstacles to local integration at all the settlements assessed were access to livelihoods and
services. Actors must consider the geographic location of a proposed settlement when designing future
projects. There is a clear opportunity to support the livelihoods of permanent residents by increasing
access to employment, markets and training within the settlements.
The lack of public open space identified in all three settlements is likely to inhibit how and where
settlements might develop facilities in the future. The location of new facilities will require careful
consideration and planning as these settlements develop over time.
ANNEX A: SITE LAYOUT AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY
SETTLEMENT OVERVIEW
The following section provides an overview of the three planned settlements, focusing on the activities
implemented there and the current layout of the sites. The three permanent settlements are located within 5
kilometres of each other and approximately 8-10 kilometres North of Gaalkacyo town. The programs have
delivered a total of 1,256 permanent houses, which are providing secure homes to an estimated 10,000
residents. An estimated 20,632 individuals have relocated to the settlement areas, half of whom are thought to
have settled informally in-and-around the permanent structures.
All three sites are located on private land and are overseen by the Puntland government who were closely
involved in all stages of the program cycle from planning and design of the projects through to their
implementation and finally, the hand-over of official land tenure documentation. The settlement residents are
represented by community settlement committees and the sites have been divided into grids with communityelected officials providing oversight and management to each section, including engagement with the landowner
and local authority when necessary.
Prior to the implementation of the planned settlements, a number of IDP households and host community
members in Halaboqad and Tawakal had already acquired their own land deeds or relocated to the planned
settlement sites showing a strong willingness to integrate locally. The beneficiary selection process varied across
the settlements, but to ensure local community integration – approximately 10-20% of project beneficiaries were
reportedly selected from the host community, a majority of whom already owned land on which their permanent
shelters were constructed.
Figure 15: Planned and informal settlements in-and-around Gaalkacyo town, May 2014
HALABOQAD
Halaboqad is located 8 km away from the centre of Gaalkacyo town, 2 km off the main road. The site measures
450 x 400 metres and is divided by a grid into squares of 125 square metre. A number of households had
already acquired their own land deeds and relocated to the area before the implementation of the project,
showing a strong willingness to integrate locally. NRC built a total of 535 permanent homes for beneficiaries: 250
were provided in 2012 and 283 in 2013, officially benefiting a total of 2,011 individuals.
Beneficiaries were selected using a community-based selection process involving local authorities and a 2-day
validation process. The selected beneficiaries included the newly displaced, the most disadvantaged IDP
population, and large families. Participatory meetings were held with the local community and 8% of the
permanent housing was allocated to them, benefitting 20 host community households in total. Beneficiaries were
also involved in the shelter design process - the final house design used concrete block walls, mud mortar and
cement rendering.
The shape of the plots in the site varies but the majority measure approximately 10 x 10 metres, providing
residents with an estimated 50-60 square metre of land in addition to their property. The plots are arranged in a
grid layout and there are 10 metres spaces every 125 metres or so which can be used for access and also act as
firebreaks.
When NRC demarcated the site, an informal settlement was also at Halaboqad. NRC estimated there were
approximately 1,000 IDP informal settler households present in total at the time. The informal settlers were
assigned a separate area on public land, adjacent to the main settlement. To support these settlers,
approximately 500 transitional shelters were provided. Key informants told REACH that approximately 667
informal IDP households were residing in and around the settlement boundary. Of these, two-thirds of the
households were reported to be living inside the settlement while one-third were reported to be living in the
adjacent area. Further to this, settlement representatives also reported that 85 households were residing on
public space inside the settlement.
Satellite image analysis identified a total of 891 structures in the main site – 881 were classified as being suitable
for residential use and 10 were more likely to be used for service provision. An additional 58 residential
structures were identified in the adjacent land for informal settlers. Assuming all of the structures in the main site
were occupied, with an average household size of 8, the Halaboqad site is estimated to be providing
approximately 26 square metres per person in space.
The site has been built around a large space in the centre of the settlement that accommodates a large market
and health facility. The infrastructure mapping exercise identified a child friendly space and health facility to the
north of the site. Furthermore, three education facilities were mapped throughout the settlement along with 4
small markets and at least 85 kiosks.
Figure 16: Halaboqad Settlement Facilities map (May 2014)
TAWAKAL
Tawakal is the oldest of the settlements - a number of households (IDP and host community) had already
relocated to the settlement and acquired informal ‘ownership’ of the communal land prior to construction of
permanent shelters. A time-series of satellite imagery, presented in figure 3 shows settlers living on the site in
June 2011. The satellite imagery also shows that the original street layout has been maintained and that the
layout of the site changed very little as a result of the intervention. Proposed changes to the arrangement of the
site were devised and agreed by the community at the start of the project but not implemented as households
were hesitant to move from their original plots of land. Households therefore stayed in the original location where
they’d already established makeshift shelters.
The site is also the biggest of the three settlements - measuring 850 x 500 metres - and like Halaboqad it is
divided into grids of approximately 125 square metres. However, shelters and facilities do not appear to be
distributed evenly and are instead concentrated predominantly in the southern-central part of the site. In 2012,
UN-Habitat oversaw the construction of 471 permanent concrete block houses, each comprising of a basic core
room and a pit latrine – providing a home to over 2,800 people.
Beneficiaries were involved in the planning and design phase of the project through a series of strategic planning
workshops. Among the outputs, attendees identified three sub-project components that were later implemented
alongside the house construction work: 1) the development of four community centres, 2) tree planting and
landscaping for individual houses and public spaces, and 3) brick making training and production.
Not all of the settlers at Tawakal were provided with permanent housing. According to KIIs, an estimated 1,684
informal IDP households reside in-and-around the settlement boundaries. This could be an over-estimate,
however, as satellite image analysis identified only 1,302 structures. While some of these buildings are likely to
be used for non-residential purposes, the results still suggest there could be nearly 1,000 informally settled
households at Tawakal. Key informants reported that 150 households of these informal settlers were residing in
public spaces without plots inside the settlement.
Assuming that there are approximately 1,300 occupied shelters, the main site is providing approximately 50
square metres per person. Plots appear to be larger than those at Halaboqad, with the majority measuring 10 x
20 m. While there is not a large open space in Tawakal like there is in Halaboqad, the density of plots is lower
towards the edges of the site. The infrastructure mapping exercise identified a primary school in the north of the
site. Two community centres and two health facilities were also mapped near the centre of Tawakal.
Figure 17: Satellite image time-series of the Tawakal settlement
SALAMA ONE
Salama One is located only 2-3 km away from Halaboqad and 8 km away from the centre of Gaalkacyo. While it
is the smallest of the settlements, the majority of plots still measure 10 x 10 m. The site has a grid layout with at
least 2-5 metres between each plot and large access routes measuring 7-8 metres across at least every 100 m.
Satellite image analysis identified 329 structures inside the main site; it is therefore estimated to be providing
approximately 29 square metres per person.
Prior to the construction of permanent structures, a small number of host community members were reported to
have settled some distance from the settlement. Time-series of satellite imagery shows that no households were
settled on the site in October 2012. Settlement construction was apparently overseen by DRC from 2013
onwards. Satellite image analysis identified approximately 250 CGI structures that are laid out regularly in a grid
system over 300 m x 250 m. At the time of the evaluation, an agreement for receipt of land title certificates was
in place but no certificates had been distributed.
The infrastructure mapping exercise identified evenly distributed kiosks and latrines but little else in terms of
infrastructure, apart from one education facility near the centre of the site.
Figure 18: Salama One Settlement Facilities map (May 2014).
INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
Informal settlement was reported at Tawakal and Halaboqad, but not at Salama One. Informal settlers arrived at
Halaboqad while NRC was demarcating the site there. They were later provided with transitional shelters and
land to the side of the main settlement. The majority of informal settlers at Tawakal arrived before the project
commenced and are said to be living in buuls and makeshift shelters throughout the settlement. There are
thought to be around 1,000 informal households at Tawakal and 667 at Halaboqad, two-thirds of who are living
on the main site. Analysis of satellite imagery and discussions with key informants suggest that informal
settlement has not taken place at the sites after or as a result of the completion of the projects.
ANNEX B: DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW AND SOCIAL VULNERABILITY
DEMOGRAPHICS
The average beneficiary household consisted of eight members. This is more than the average household size of
seven in the Gaalkacyo informal settlements, which may be attributed to a more secure living environment.
Furthermore, the household size is likely to be an underestimate, as 31% of households reported that additional
family members were currently living elsewhere. It is recommended that the household size and covered living
space per person is monitored over time as part of a sustainable development approach and, in particular, to
avoid over-crowding.
Figure 19: Population pyramids for three planned settlements
(blue bars represent males and red bars represent females)
Age
Above 60
Age
Above 60
Age
Above 60
25-59
25-59
25-59
18-24
18-24
18-24
12-17
12-17
12-17
5-11
5-11
5-11
0-4
0-4
0-4
16 11 6
1
4
9 14
Percentage of Population
Halaboqad
16 11 6
1
4
9 14
Salama 1
16 11 6
1
4
9 14
Tawakal
The breakdown of sex and age was similar in each settlement, as demonstrated in the population pyramids in
figure 5; it is also similar to the informal settlement population living in Gaalkacyo and other regions in southcentral Somalia. To summarise, there was an even distribution between males (50%) and females (50%) but
when disaggregated by age, males in the planned settlements represented 53% of the ‘child-youth’ population
(ages 1-17) and 46% of the ‘adult’ population (ages 18+). Almost two-thirds of the population were aged 17 or
below and 22% of the population were children aged under 5. A low number (4%) of the population were aged 60
and above.
IMPAIRMENTS AND VULNERABILITIES
36% of households in Gaalkacyo town’s informal settlements were single female-headed, which is higher than
the proportion found at Tawakal (31%) and Halaboqad (24%). A larger than expected proportion (44%) of female
headed households reside in Salama One, as demonstrated in figure 6. The reason for this is unclear but could
be due to beneficiary selection or other social-economic explanations. Throughout the settlements, 17% of
households reported to contain women of child-bearing age who were pregnant and 30% that were lactating.
Furthermore, 16% of households reported members with physical impairments and 12% reported members with
mental impairments. These statistics are again comparable to those of the informal settlement population in
Gaalkacyo.
% of households reporting
each vulnerability
Figure 20: Proportion of households by vulnerable group at each settlement
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Halaboqad
Salama One
Tawakal
ORIGIN OF THE ASSISTED POPULATION
The majority (84%) of surveyed households reported being displaced from their places of origin four years ago or
more. The majority of respondents in each settlement said they originated from the region in which they currently
lived, Mudug (Halaboqad, 29%; Salama One, 20%; and Tawakal, 60%) or Banaadir/Mogadishu – (Halaboqad,
27%; Salama ~1%; and Tawakal, 22%). Note that only 7% of IDPs in Gaalkacyo town reported to be from Mudug
compared to almost two-thirds in Tawakal. This is likely because residents at Tawakal had already settled at the
site before the program began and so considered Mudug to be their home.
Other places of origin reported by residents of the planned settlements include Bay (4%), Hiran (3%), Galguduud
(2%) and Lower Juba (2%). One per cent or less of the planned camp population also originated from the
following regions: Bakool, Bari, Gedo, Lower Shabelle, Middle Juba, Nugaal, Sanaag, Sool, and Woqooyi
Galbeed.
Field level observations and focus group discussions suggest that the majority of households in the permanent
settlements belong to the Rahanweyn clan (Digil and Mirifle) mainly from the south of Somalia, the Darood clan
from both the north & south of Somalia, and Jarir/Bantu, an African minority clan. This is consistent with
anecdotal evidence that suggests a majority of IDPs in Mudug are from the Rahanweyn or Jarir clans while the
Darood clan is known to be the local majority clan in Mudug.

SHELTER DURABLE SOLUTIONS EVALUATION Halaboqad

Transcription

Similar documents

Foundation settlements Settlements of foundations

Circular Flow Chart

Here For Pdf Version

IWRM – NEIAFU, VAVA`U

Piikani Nation Waters

Juventud Presente No. 27

September 2015

Greg Webb`s Verdicts and Settlements

Emirates Driving Institute partners with Al Salama Fire Safety Training

Ken Goodgames Chief Executive Officer Transformance