This page is dedicated to providing summary information to independent volunteers wishing to provide humanitarian aid to refugees across Europe.
To assist you, we aim to provide a short overview of the main issues associated with the provision of humanitarian aid within the context of the current refugee crisis in Europe. The points and questions addressed have been identified by volunteers and professional NGO staff working across Lesvos, Greece but are also relevant to other locations.
Over the coming weeks we will be adding to this catalogue of information. If you have any questions, suggestions or points you would like us to cover, please get in touch here.
Refugee or migrant? Whilst the media often use the two terms interchangeably- they have “distinct and different meanings, and confusing them leads to problems for both populations”.
This helpful summary from UNHCR explains the difference, and why using the right term matters.
The Sphere Project: The Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards
The Sphere Project is a collaboration between various aid workers that came together in 1977 to establish a set of core principles under the Humanitarian Charter to improve the delivery of aid and increase accountability. As part of this project, collaborators also established a set of four protection principles and a set of minimum standards to guide the provision of aid. To date, over 400 organisations from 80 countries have contributed to the development of the minimum standards based on field experiences.
What is the The Humanitarian Charter?
The Humanitarian Charter is a set of guiding principles that the international humanitarian aid community ascribes to in relation to delivering aid. The principles are largely common sense principles in line with basic human rights, including: the right to life with dignity; the right to receive humanitarian assistance; the right to protection and security
All people affected by disaster or conflict have a right to receive protection and assistance
Where national capacity is insufficient, we affirm the role of the wider international community, including governmental donors and regional organisations, in assisting states to fulfil their responsibilities.
As humanitarian agencies, we interpret our role in relation to the needs and capacities of affected populations and the responsibilities of their governments or controlling powers.
What are the Protection Principles?
Avoid exposing people to further harm as a result of your actions
Ensure people’s access to impartial assistance – in proportion to need and without discrimination
Protect people from physical and psychological harm arising from violence and coercion
Assist people to claim their rights, access available remedies and recover from the effects of abuse
What are the minimum core standards?
These standards guide the provision of aid under four categories:
water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion
food security and nutrition
shelter, settlement and non-food items
health action
The Sphere Project- including the full charter, protection principles and minimum standards may be found online at: http://www.spherehandbook.org
It is important to distinguish between mild hypothermia and extreme hypothermia. The treatments are very different and if misdiagnosed, you may cause more harm. In both instances, the primary aim is to prevent further heat loss.
There is also a lot of mis-understanding about the correct use of emergency blankets. The confusion usually stems from the way that emergency blankets work, and also from the different colours available.
Emergency blankets work by reflecting heat back to the body. They are a preventative measure to hypothermia- they cannot make you warm and treat hypothermia. The colour does not affect it’s functionality.
Mild hypothermia:
In these cases you will normally notice shivering and the person should be responsive and coherent.
Treatment:
You can encourage light movement in order to stimulate blood flow and raise the body's temperature slowly.
When applying an emergency blanket, the most important thing to remember- irrespective of the colour of the blanket- is that they need to be wrapped tightly around the body in order to retain heat effectively.
In the case of wet clothing, remove as many wet layers as possible- wrap the blanket tightly around the body and replace the outer layers. You can also use smaller sections to wrap around feet in place of socks.
In the case of infants and children, who are particularly susceptible to hypothermia, ensure you cover the head (not the face).
Extreme hypothermia:
In these cases, the person will be too cold to shiver and they are likely to be incoherent or unresponsive.
Treatment:
Call for medical assistance immediately
Minimise any movement- this is to discourage cold blood in the extremities from circulating to the core organs and causing damage
Remove wet clothing if necessary and cover with dry, warm clothes and blankets
Apply an emergency blanket over the top of warm layers and around the neck and head.
Apply warm compresses or a hot water bottle, if available, but only to the core area, head, neck and groin. Do NOT apply to the extremities as this draws blood away from vital organs. Do NOT apply directly to the skin- hypothermic skin is very sensitive to heat and can burn easily.
Shield the victim from the wind and further cold as much as possible.
Non-alcoholic, non-caffeinated, warm sweet liquids (not hot) may be given if the victim is responsive and is showing signs of warming up.
Emergency blanket colouring explained:
The colour makes no significant difference to the functionality and effectiveness of the blanket.
The gold or orange side can be useful however in helping rescuers to spot people against water or snow as these colours stand out more than the silver coloured side.
The most important thing to remember is that it should be wrapped tightly around the body.
The above is only an introductory overview of recommended responses. We encourage you to refer to the links below for further information, consult medical professionals and access training if you are likely to be working with potential hypothermia victims.
This may not be directly relevant to your work as an independent volunteer but can be helpful in understanding where your efforts fit into the bigger picture.
ICOON global picture dictionary is your travel language guide for all over the world. 2.000 icons will help you to communicate with everybody on this planet.
Donations Needed for Victims of Fire in Parola, Manila
Earlier this month, a devastating fire broke out in Parola District in Manila. It is estimated that 7,000 people lost their homes and everything they contained.
Our friends in Manila are trying to help by collecting clothes and other essentials. If you have anything you can spare and would like to donate, please get in touch and we will give you further details.
FGD 1: Social Housing for Informal Settler Families
The provision of social housing relies upon the ability of multiple stakeholders to navigate a virtual labyrinth of complex issues such as: land allocation, awardee selection, tenure agreements, site and building design, budgetary constraints, and cultural mores; leaving precious few moments to examine the successes and failures of past projects which would provide a framework of best practices for future housing initiatives. At the same time, research that exists in a purely academic environment does little to inform practice at the ground level. Our aim in this focus group discussion (FGD) series, developed with assistance from the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Informal Settler Family Resiliency Team in Manila, is to present research that directly addresses the knowledge gaps identified by practitioners to generate dialogue that promotes learning and progress in the area of social housing for Informal Settler Families (ISFs).
In the opening FGD, DRRlab presented its preliminary findings of the Katuparan-Vitas case study which evaluated the design and delivery strategies of the complex using evidence gathered through mapping, interviews, discussions and workshops.
During the evaluation of Katuparan-Vitas we noted that the community is considered by housing providers to be an almost static entity. Tenure and repayment agreements, unit/building size, and infrastructure, all reflect a viewpoint that family size and livelihood needs are homogeneous and constant over long periods of time. However we know this to be false; families expand and contract and work opportunities change locations. In response to inevitable change, Katuparan-Vitas residents built extensions and illegally tapped into water points, waste pipes, and electrical lines; management systems eroded, building maintenance ceased, amortization payments have all but stopped, and the buildings have become degraded to the brink of condemnation in just a little over twenty years. Punitive measures such as the issuance of fines and late fees did little to get things on track while the introduction of new initiatives targeting specific problems, such as the provision of waste bins to aid in refuse collection, have gone largely unnoticed.
It is easy to point to the residents as the culpable parties. However, while they may have had a hand in the matter the truth is: inflexible housing components either never functioned as intended or were unable to accept shifting resident needs and inevitably broke down.
Although Katuparan-Vitas is only one example, it has come face-to-face with several challenges experienced by projects of all scales and location. Limited funds paired with an ever growing number of families-in-need often tempt housing providers to sacrifice material quality, functionality, and site design in favor of achieving short-term numbers-oriented goals. Because repayment rates are typically low, organizations remain reluctant to make greater initial investments for a fewer number of beneficiaries. But the cost to build, demolish, provide interim housing, and rebuild sub-par units for larger numbers of beneficiaries are equally untenable. Families wishing to remain in proximity with one another have few options. Limited available land compounds the issue as space for new sites are often located far from social networks and work opportunities.
By designing smartly however, it is possible to consider dynamism from the outset; to accommodate a variety of needs and pre-plan for change. Providers can minimize damages that occur during frequent weather events and reduce maintenance costs by making better use of site attributes and inherent material qualities; using topography to reduce impacts from flooding or well-weathering cladding systems that require little to no upkeep. Private and public spaces can be planned and allocated keeping cultural traditions in mind; providing areas for children to safely play while being easily monitored by their guardians or multi-purpose spaces to be used for meetings or religious events. Hard infrastructure can be made to accept increased connections and demand; using more than the “design minimum”. Tenure and repayment agreements can be streamlined in a way that is more transparent and fulfills both transitional and permanent housing needs. By planning holistically providers can incorporate soft infrastructure such as savings cooperatives, livelihood training, and social services that enable residents to more readily access educational and employment opportunities, reduce income related stresses, or adjust to living in a new environment.
When housing is viewed narrowly, the opportunity to gain insight from professionals in other sectors is missed. When housing is viewed broadly the need for increased collaboration among stakeholders is underscored. This was, perhaps, the main outcome of the first FGD. Participants agreed that greater efforts needs to be made to bring professionals with varying skillsets to the table so that we are better able to consider the varying needs of communities, families, and individuals.
Coming soon…
FDG 2: Social Housing Revisited
The aims for this Discussion are to examine the infrastructure strategy, site planning and architectural design in relation to:
the fundamental goals for social housing.
the relationship of timelines (lease/ land use agreements/ guarantees etc.)
how housing provision can be more flexible and support the need for change.
impacts on family and community resilience.
We will also consider how these goals are communicated to beneficiaries and the potential impacts of perceptions of social housing on attitudes towards mobility, upkeep and repayment.
Following collaboration with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Informal Settler Resiliency Team in Manila, DRRlab hosted a short series of focus group discussions for local partners and housing stakeholders on the provision of medium rise social housing for informal settler families (ISFs) in Metro Manila.
The discussions were based around different aspects of social housing provision and uses Katuparan-Vitas as an example study to identify areas for further exploration and debate.
Above: A resident looks out over the municipal slaughterhouse from the roof of building three.
In addition to the physical ailments that this complex suffers, many of the underlying support systems are also lacking, and it is these that may have the largest effect on the long term success of housing delivery and the overall wellbeing and subsequent reduction of poverty within the community. These include sustainable repayment agreements; site management training and support; sustainable livelihood options; and access to education, social care and health services (including mental health).
During a site visit last week, the stresses suffered by many of Katuparan’s occupants as a result of both the support system deficit and the inevitably deteriorated housing were made heartbreakingly clear.
It was 8:30am and I was waiting for a meeting. I was stood against the wall that divides the Katuparan complex from the municipal slaughterhouse on the neighboring site, one of the few spots to hide from the intense early morning sun. To my left was a small basketball court defined by a tarpaulin sunshade, about six square meters in size with a goal fashioned from a rusted hoop and scrap wood. Four young men were playing, lazily tossing the ball amongst them. One of the men seemed particularly disinterested. A community member pointed to him and informed me that his father, on the previous night, had hung himself. They rushed him to hospital but were told they had to pay PHP 20,000 (about £270) before they would assist. The outcome? ‘Well… he’s dead’ came the response, in a manner that suggested this type of event was all too regular an occurrence.
Later that morning, during a workshop, one of the building coordinators pointed out that a category was missing on a survey related to site usage. I enquired. ‘We have a problem with jumpers’ he replied. ‘I am from building three. Our building is next to the slaughterhouse. Too many people go to the roof and jump to the slaughterhouse- because there are no railings there’.
I returned the next day to find the basketball court had been converted into a small makeshift chapel, defined by the same tarpaulin sunshade; a creamy white coffin was laid out with chairs in front. Over the course of the morning, visitors stopped by to pay their respects- some sat chatting and drinking coffee. As I passed by with another resident, watching our footing as we tried to negotiate an open drain, he told me again of the father’s fate. ‘It is because of depression. He was depressed because of poverty. Many, many people have depression here because they don’t have any money.’
He took me to building three where we met the building coordinator. We ascended to the roof via a treacherous set of stairs. He showed me the jump point. Recently a couple had jumped together. The wife survived, the husband did not.
As DRRlab continues its work to provide assistance to this community in developing ideas for their future housing, we must work equally hard to address the dangers of blind optimism that thoughts of new housing can bring.
These suicides are the shocking symptoms of numerous and complex problems, including a lack of access to services. To think that railings, or any architectural intervention alone could prevent such tragedies is to miss the point. These suicides are not problems that can be simply designed away.
New housing provides the utopian image of a better life for Manila’s urban poor. As attentions turn to the 2016 elections, model-housing schemes are a must for any savvy administration. But unless the government insists on a robust implementation programme, one that fully incorporates essential support systems, then the cycle of poverty, and depression, will inevitably follow. Architecture can be a powerful tool. But it’s not that powerful.
