The need for humanitarian response in urban areas is increasing with rapid urban growth, threats to cities from extreme weather and several other factors. However, urban areas present unique challenges in terms of complexity and scale with respect to humanitarian response. This is because many of the existing ways of working were originally developed to address rural crises, and may not work as well in cities. This paper outlines key lessons related to the design and implementation of urban disaster-response programmes. It focuses on the response and early recovery phases of an urban emergency, and on natural disasters such as earthquakes and flooding.
As an update of the 2009 ALNAP/Prevention paper, it presents extensive evaluations on urban disasters like the Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines (2009), the Haiti earthquake of 2010 and the Northeast Japan earthquake and tsunami of 2011. Intended as a field resource, it outlines key lessons related to the design and implementation of urban disaster-response programmes:
- Urban programmes should have clear boundaries, but remain flexible on how to work within these boundaries: Agencies responding to urban emergencies must have clarity about the sectorial and geographic scope of their interventions, an exit strategy, and a well-coordinated programme.
- Always work with local authorities and communities, and coordinate effectively: The scale and complexity of urban disasters increase the demand for effective partnerships.
- Use assessment and targeting approaches that suit urban complexity: It is important to identify priority areas while recognising that needs may be spread widely across the city and beyond. Also the perspectives of communities are essential as they can provide invaluable information on which areas and households are most in need, and what is needed.
- Cash-based programmes work well in urban areas: Cash transfers may be preferable to cash for work (CFW) programmes. Where markets are functioning, cash transfer programmes can meet many of the immediate and recovery needs of urban households.
- Work with local markets and private-sector initiatives: Urban livelihoods are largely reliant on local markets for goods and services. Agencies should attempt to work within, and support, existing economic systems.
- Adopt urban approaches to camps, shelter and housing: Agencies should avoid locating camps on the edges of cities where possible. Camps can increase displacement and population movement, as surrounding populations move in to take advantage of camp services. Alternatively, they can lead to tensions with surrounding populations. Also, avoid permanent relocation, unless this is the only option.
- ‘Urbanise’ sectorial interventions: For example, agencies should be careful about the clearance of debris and rubble, and consider possible reuse. Safety in camps is a vital concern since disasters often increase the chances for an outbreak of violence and conflict, especially violence against women and girls.
- Use new and existing media for better communication, information gathering and accountability: for example, community radio can be a powerful means of communicating information; mobile phone handset usage data can be used to monitor population movements; and crowdsourcing can provide information on location and needs, and can help in tracing family members.
- Relief and recovery actions need to build future urban resilience to avoid wasted investments.
