dispersed or grouped settlement

figure 3(a): six transitional settlement options

host families rural self-settlement urban self-settlement collective centres (mass shelter) self-settled camps planned camps grouped settlement dispersed settlement

displaced settlement

3 options

If dispersed settlement is the preferred option of the displaced population, it should be the preferred option for support by the aid community, in most circumstances. Consideration should be given, however, to the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative presented in the following sections. The support of grouped settlements should only be considered in situations where one or more of the following criteria are encountered. (Many of these criteria have been used inappropriately as excuses, however, and the relative importance of each criteria must be weighed against the other transitional settlement considerations presented in these guidelines.)

• The only sites available for transitional settlement are in

environments where there is no local community or settlement within which to integrate displaced people.

• Political, social, and financial costs of emergency and long-term

support for dispersed infrastructure are deemed too high.

• The need is so urgent that there is insufficient time to provide

infrastructure for dispersed settlement.

• The local population is unwilling to accept (or is hostile towards)

the integration of a displaced population.

• The host government is unwilling to allow dispersed

transitional settlement for political or security reasons: for example, if the displaced population is large, and in particular if it is larger than the local population.

• The dispersed settlement would result in competition for

insufficient local resources, such as water or fuel wood.

• The displaced persons require significantly greater service

infrastructure and support than the local people who have always lived in that area: for example, emergency feeding centres and cholera hospitals as well as food distribution.

• The local environment is fragile, and the impacts caused by the

migrant population can be better contained in a grouped settlement, compared with dispersed settlement. The use of natural resources and communal facilities should be managed sustainably, with the development of the local population in mind. Aid organisations risk undermining community structures by taking over many of their roles: for instance, by making decisions that should be made by community committees. Community settlement will play in the livelihoods of the population and their

hosts: there is little point in settling a displaced population in an area where there are no opportunities for them to sustain themselves, or where they will be competing with a local population for insufficient natural resources or work.

Supporting dispersed settlement over grouped settlement is often preferable, for several reasons:

• It can be more responsive to the changing needs and

circumstances of displaced groups, if it allows the displaced population more choice and better relations with the local community.

• It can be more appropriate to the needs of displaced groups,

offering better use of existing coping strategies and local contacts.

• It can be more effective in offering developmental opportunities

to the local population, for example by allowing the aid community to support common infrastructure and services.

• It can be more cost-effective for the aid community, requiring

smaller initial investments than large-scale responses, such as planned camps.

In terms of politics and security, dispersed settlement can reduce the potential for tension and conflict between displaced and host populations, because dispersed displaced populations often fit in better with local natural-resource management (NRM) strategies, for example in the collection of fuel wood. Another environmental benefit of dispersed settlement is that it makes less intensive demands on resources, so that it remains within the local carrying capacity. Grouped transitional settlement may concentrate resource use so much that it is unsustainable, resulting in impacts such as deforestation and soil erosion. However, if dispersed settlement is unsupported, it may have similar negative effects, such as over- burdening local infrastructure, services, and environmental resources.

3 options

• In some circumstances, the local environment is so fragile that

it is better to contain, rather than disperse, the impacts caused by the displaced population.

[...] whilst dispersed settlement might be the preferred option (for displaced individuals, which should make it the preferred option for consideration by the aid community), it is not without risk. The challenge facing the aid community is then how to ensure that the needs of the displaced and local populations are best understood and met when such settlements are supported.

Mellander (1988)

problems with grouped settlement

Grouped settlements are associated with a number of risks, including the following:

• risks to security, because they constitute a clear target, especially

if they are located close to a border area or the front line of a conflict, which may encourage insurgency by armed factions, thus increasing not only the vulnerability of the displaced population, but also that of the host population;

• concentration of demand for natural resources, and hence the

risk of natural resources being harvested beyond the sustainable limits of the area;

• the segregation of displaced and local populations, which,

combined with the disparity in support offered to each, may create tensions or conflict;

• de-skilling and increased dependency among the displaced

population over the longer term, if there are fewer opportunities for the displaced population to work, especially with the local population;

• a high initial capital investment, without any certainty about the

duration of the displacement. development activities (8.5), often run by agencies’ social services

departments, seek to minimise the negative impacts of emergency interventions. Although such activities are usually initiated in support of grouped TS options, such as camps, displaced communities face their own challenges if they have opted for dispersed transitional settlement, such as accommodation with host families. It is important to devote attention to initiating community development activities appropriate to their needs.

problems of dispersed settlement

Given the usual field constraints of limited personnel and access, it can be more difficult for the aid community to understand and support the needs of dispersed displaced populations than it is to address the needs of grouped populations. Protection and security concerns, particularly relating to vulnerable groups, may prove more difficult to identify than they are in grouped settlement options.

• Displaced populations usually self-settle close to a border area or

the front line of a conflict, which may encourage insurgency by armed factions. This not only increases the vulnerability of the displaced population, but it could also place the host population at risk.

• Security might be compromised if displaced and host

populations are of different ethnic or political groups with a history of hostility towards one another.

• Dispersed settlements pose problems for aid agencies when

trying to estimate population numbers and register beneficiaries. In turn, this makes the assessment of needs difficult and may result in inappropriately designed assistance programmes.

• Limited physical access to a dispersed population can present

logistical difficulties, which can affect the speed and the efficiency of the assistance.

• Displaced persons, especially those who are vulnerable, must be

assured maximum access to essential services. Their dispersal over a large area will stretch the resources of the aid community and local authorities, given the time and effort needed to deploy sufficient resources.

• In some circumstances, security and stability can more easily be

improved by the local authorities and the aid community when displaced populations are concentrated into groups and not dispersed.

3 options

self-settlement, may mean, however, that self-settlement is appropriate only for a certain period.

When seeking to self-settle, displaced populations consider many factors, including the following:

• access to sufficient land for settlement and agriculture;

• access to water, fuel wood, and construction materials;

• protection and security, either from external forces or from

groups within the displaced populations, especially if displaced populations self-settle near a border or conflict area;

• access to food aid until agricultural self-sufficiency might be

expected (typically six months to two years), and especially during the emergency phase;

• access to services, such as health centres and schools.

The concerns and priorities of various groups within a displaced population should be assessed and monitored, as part of the strategic planning process (chapter 2). It is important to remember that the factors that led displaced families to select a particular TS option are likely to change during the course of their displacement. It is therefore vital that the aid community maintains an understanding of these changing factors, because they will determine whether displaced families are likely to move between options.

External aid organisations and local authorities should identify existing self-settled populations as soon as possible. They must then determine whether a particular form of transitional settlement should be supported, or whether the displaced population should be moved: for example, if they are at risk from incursion, or if their presence in that location is a risk to local security.

Planned settlement is often the only form of transitional settlement supported by the aid community. There are two main scenarios, however, in which self-settlement by the displaced populations should be supported in preference to planned settlement (when security, local relations, and resources permit):

• The decision was made by the displaced people themselves, who

usually have a better understanding of their needs and

circumstances than those who wish to support them – although sufficient assessment must be undertaken immediately to form an understanding of these needs and circumstances relative to those of other stakeholders, such as the local population.