Space and place after natural disasters and forced displacement - Rebuilding After Disasters: From Emergency to Sustainability - page 226

package delivered by humanitarian agencies. This continuity lends further
weight to the need for humanitarian institutions to better integrate the
'relief-to-development continuum' discussed above as a central core of their
post-disaster reconstruction strategies. A holistic approach is essential. 52
Third, the challenge of achieving a more integrated approach is apparent at
different institutional levels. At the national level, there is frequently a lack of
institutional capacity, for example special national agencies, to tackle shelter
and housing-related issues for people displaced by disasters. Similarly, there is
limited national capacity to monitor and evaluate displacement and housing
reconstruction. Weak national-level capacity to involve affected communities
and consult them in planning and policy-making also needs to be addressed,
and it reflects the broader weaknesses of governance structures and state
fragility in those countries most prone to disasters and conflict. Telford and
Cosgrave provide telling evidence of the post-tsunami failure to implement
effective participation by local populations in the reconstruction process. 43
These national-level limitations mirror even greater challenges evident at
the international level. The Humanitarian Response Review (HRR) in 2005
has addressed some of the problems that intergovernmental agencies have
experienced in coordinating and managing post-disaster responses by defin-
ing principles and practices for better coordination, 32 also noted by OCHA. 49
The search for better coordination is mirrored in coalitions of organisations
such as USAID and Interaction. 50
The HRR process designated two distinct 'clusters' for the sector: the
International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) now leads on shelter
responses in natural disasters, while UNHCR leads on shelter and camp
management in conflict situations. Despite some operational benefits from
these recent initiatives, 42 it could be argued that a more effective way forward
is to recognise that many settlement responses are transferable between these
two displacement scenarios and should form a comprehensive process of
intervention. 5 This new formulation actually introduces a sectoral division
and inhibits a generic learning-from-experience process. Moreover, institu-
tionalising this division only makes sense if we accept that natural disasters
are truly natural . But - as explained in Chapter 1 - the differential impacts
on affected populations are part of a wider process of socio-economic differ-
entiation that is highlighted by disasters, thus reinforcing the case for shared
learning across both natural disaster and conflict-driven displacement. 7,31
Finally, the interplay between the limited institutional capacity of national
governments and the dominant and competing interests of multilateral
organisations and donor agencies is problematic. This further compounds
the problems of the poor coordination and implementation of shelter policies
for displaced populations. Thus, in order for space and place to be better
designed, indeed to successfully achieve the wide range of objectives that
the shelter sector is expected to deliver, renewed efforts are needed to ensure
coordinated agency planning at all levels and the reconciliation of conflicting
mandates.