This report is based on the discussion held at the 27th Meeting of the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) and on a review of recent literature on humanitarian responses to urban crises. The document discusses the humanitarian response to rapid urbanisation and identifies ways in which the humanitarian system could learn from recent events in places such as in Port au Prince, Manila, and eastern Japan. It provides an overview of emerging good practice and highlights the need for urgent action across the international humanitarian system in order to prepare for future urban disasters.
The different constituencies of actors in attendance at the meeting developed a series of priority actions for how they should adapt to the ‘urban millennium’:
- National Disaster Management Authorities (NDMAs): Their priority is capacity building, and developing urban emergency operations centres and updated comprehensive contingency plans for major urban centres.
- Donor Representatives felt they needed to establish a cross-donor agency working group on urban disasters. They felt it was important to encourage innovative programming solutions for urban areas, and to support agencies to take measured risks, allowing for pilots and failures.
- Representatives of United Nations bodies recommended that UN agencies need to critically examine all current procedures, frameworks, and tools through an ‘urban lens’, updating and improving those which were not well adapted to urban action.
- NGOs felt that they needed to put more energy and resources into understanding the urban context and the different kinds of vulnerability that exist, and use this understanding to redefine their mandates with respect to urban programming.
- The Red Cross and Red Crescent representatives felt they needed to strengthen the operational capacities of national societies to respond to urban disasters.
- Academics and the Q&A initiatives felt that they should develop a handbook/good practice review for urban contexts, and be more active in building an evidence base for what works in urban contexts.
The idea of collective advocacy and learning, mobilising resources and providing a focal point for shared efforts was endorsed by all participants. As such, a pragmatic set of ‘next steps’, to help orient a shared way forward for the humanitarian community was developed:
- Step 1: Agencies should have a clear definition of ‘urban crisis’. Trigger events that would lead to engagement in an urban crisis, and the general objectives and exit strategy in any crisis should be identified in advance.
- Step 2: Agencies and multi-agency bodies should consider the potential scale and urgency of the chal¬lenges posed by urban crises. National and municipal bodies should also urgently identify potential risks and vulnerabilities to urban centres.
- Step 3: International, national and municipal organisations should ‘stress-test’ existing policies standards and Standard Operating Procedures to ensure that they are relevant and useful for urban disaster engagement.
- Step 4: Where knowledge or skills gaps are identified as a part of these exercises, organisations should move to ensuring that these gaps can be filled by training, recruitment, strategic partnerships or stand-by agreements.
- Step 5: The humanitarian system and organisations should urgently develop better methods and tools for urban assessment and analysis.
- Step 6: The humanitarian system should establish a forum for sharing and dissemination of best practice and tools related to urban crises.
- Step 7: Humanitarian actors should trial new innovative approaches in ‘small’ urban crises, in preparation for larger crises in the future.