|
|
Shelter Coordination Meeting |
Sectoral Co-ordination Meeting
on Shelter
Friday, 14th September 2001
Chaired by Dr. Tom Corsellis UNHCR Shelter Co-ordinator
In attendance were:
Dr. Tom Corsellis - UNHCR
Mr. Y. Faugere - UNICEF
Ms. S. Pesic - OCHA
Mr. C. Pott - IFRC
Mr. N. Angelovski - MRC
Ms. D. Kostovska - CARE
Mr. M. Elliot - Oxfam
Mr. N. Koolik - IRC
Mr. S. Jordan - IRC
Mr. A. Krzalovski - MCIC
Mr. G. Shabani - MCIC
Mr. G.Laskaris- European Perspective
Mr. J. Srodecky - World Vision Int.
Ms. R. Savic - World Vision Int.
Mr. S. Taylor - Mercy Corps
Mr. N. Kasami - Solidarites
Mr. L. Benoit - Solidarites
Mr.N.Scott-Flynn-Save the Children UK
Mr. R. Balic - CESVI
Introductory remarks:
The Chair proposed the following agenda for discussion:
- Housing
- IMG progress (IMG)
- Implementation and areas (HCR)
- Schools and ambulanta
- Assessments (Seismic Institute)
- Progress
- Government report on utilities and strategy
- Ministry of Transport and Communication or IMG
- IDPs with host families (HF)
- Shelter upgrading (European Perspective)
- IDPs in collective centres (CCs)
- Briefing (UNHCR)
- Progress (IRC)
- Refugees (UNHCR)
- Issues from the floor
The Chair reported of the little progress made on the
ground since the last meeting as pending decisions were not taken yet
by key authorities.
The meeting was advised that some of the participants,
i.e. IMG, the Seismic Institute and the Government were engaged in other
meetings and would not be able to send representative to attend.
1) Housing
1.1 IMG progress
The Chair briefed that IMG had finalised the assessment schedule according
to which all targeted villages would be covered by 28 September 2001.
Note was made the schedule had been prepared on the base of the Government's
estimate on housing damage that operated with a number of 2-3,000 houses.
The assessment was reportedly proceeding on schedule, though with some
minor access problems at some of the villages.
1.2 Implementation and areas
The Chair reported that no decision was taken in the ad-hoc meetings held
so far on the issues of regional repair and implementation . These issues
were thus still under discussion. The Chair reiterated that the purpose
of the meetings was to ensure that all concerned agencies join their efforts
in repair activities in a common approach that could be implemented under
different labels. UNHCR hoped to use them: as a tool for getting an overview
of the situation; to facilitate targeting of implementation activities;
and to provide legal basis to carry out activities according to Government's
agreed policies.
It was further explained that, given UNHCR's and other
agencies' limited individual capacity to fully cover financial needs for
repair of housing damage, compromise among concerned parties on the basic
elements of repair implementation should be made and an agreement reached
to include e.g. unified standards for repair of each building damage category
as well as facilitate signing of a formal agreement with the Government
that would further set implementation procedures.
Further on this point, the Chair invited participants
to report if additional capacities were available to support repair needs
in the 3 regions. World Vision (WV) observed that the selection of areas
at which an agency could be active was limited due the access problems
and noted there should be a common understanding that activities could
not be carried out village by village. Also, the rationale of using a
common methodology and carrying out activities under a common project
should be explained to the donors.
An overview was then made of interest or commitment
reported for regional repair. Mercy Corps (MCI) was willing to repair
600 houses in Tetovo region; IRC was planning to repair 400 houses in
Kumanovo and Tetovo regions; MCIC could repair 100 houses in Kumanovo
and Skopje regions, with more capacity for UNHCR-funded works; IFRC 400
houses in Kumanovo; and Shelter Now (SNI) 600 houses in the Skopje region
.
2) Schools and Ambulanta
2.1 Assessments
The Chair reported that, in the meetings on education and health, lists
of schools and ambulanta in were available, but there was insufficient
information on the damage. Thus, discussion went over the possibilities
to carry out technical assessment in the field rather than over prioritising
school buildings for repaired.
The Chair suggested that, as the effort to assess damage
rapidly on the basis of data already available had failed, assessment
to be carried out in the field should be more detailed and adjusted to
tender purposes. He briefly described what a tender assessment was, stressing
that such assessment would not differ much from the ongoing IMG assessment
and would be complemented with technical information available from the
Seismic Institute.
2.2. Progress
European Perspective (EP) announced that it had funds to repair 3 schools
and was also interested in upgrading of ambulantas. IRC reiterated that
it was interested to rehabilitate the clinic at the v. of Arachinovo provided
that funds, not more than US$ 2,000, were available. WV expressed interest,
noting that it had a potential to upgrade 2-5 schools.
3) Government report on utilities
and strategy
The meeting was advised that the Government was not ready to present the
report on utilities and implementation strategy that day and would communicate
on procedures to be taken at a later stage.
UNICEF reported that they were looking to put together
shelter and the data provided by the Government in the UNICEF common assessment.
4) IDPs with Host Families
EP briefed of developments further to the recent announcement of availability
of cash grant for shelter upgrading from the Greek Government. EP reported
it had already started preparing a project proposal for HF houses upgrading,
for which it had started and half completed a pilot technical assessment.
Screening of damage was carried out by EP local partners and was to cover
a 10% sample of the 6,000 families targeted with the UNICEF common vulnerability
assessment.
5) IDPs in Collective Centres
(CCs)
5.1 Briefing
The Chair briefed the meeting that there was still no strategy on winterisation
at CCs, nor was decision taken by higher authorities on the issue of relocation
of CCs that had to be vacated due to the start of school year or improper
winterisation facility.
Save the Children (SCF) reported that the CCs ad-hoc
group held another meeting. The group was uncomfortable with the ambiguous
position of the Government on the issue of vacating CCs located at boarding
houses for students and children with special care needs, and was hoping
senior staff decision on the issue would be passed shortly. The meeting
was further briefed on the latest developments in IDP registration at
which it was reported that the number of IDPs who requested moving from
HF to CCs had increased. Although RC stopped registration, the latest
figure of IDPs at CCs was some 3,900.
5.2 Progress
The Chair invited reports on available capacities for relocation and winterisation.
SCF noted it had funds committed since 2 months ago for upgrading CCs
that were located at facilities used by children. EP and IRC expressed
readiness to start activities provided that funds were available.
IRC reported the tenders for the 3 CCs in Kumanovo region
were back and had been reviewed. Project proposal was to be submitted
to UNHCR for approval that day.
It was reported that DRC had met with Government representatives
the day before to discuss priorities in repair of heating facilities at
CCs.
6) Refugees
In absence of UNHCR representative, MCIC reported on the substantive increase
in returns of ethnic Albanians who were staying in Kosovo. In lack of
collective and HF accommodation capacity, these people were mainly returning
back to their homes regardless of whether these were damaged or safe or
not. Returns were also reported of Macedonians from the Kumanovo area
where the pressure was strong for the IDPs to return back. Villages at
which these returns were registered were Radusa, Orasje, Otlja (3,000
persons), Matejce (600) and Lipkovo (1,500).
The Chair noted that, the villages being in the risk
areas with restricted access, housing damage and repair activities could
not be undertaken. The shelter group would make effort to obtain damage
reports from those who were visiting these villages. MCIC noted that the
initial reports from Radusa and Orasje were quoting 10% of houses were
destructed; 10% burnt down and 50% partially damaged (i.e. 20% of Category
4 and 50% Categories 1 -3) and that plastic sheets were urgently needed.
The meeting was also invited to consider possibilities of providing prefabricated
houses and make enquiries on availability of funds and houses.
7) Issues from the floor
No issue was raised from the floor.
Summary of Agreed Action points:
· invited to consider possibilities of providing
prefabricated houses and make enquiries on availability of funds and houses.
Appendix 1: Housing
damage assessment (Implementation) 
 Previous
reports
|
