VEHA
Guidance
Guidance
Virtual Environmental and Humanitarian Adviser Tool – (VEHA Tool) is a tool
to easily integrate environmental considerations in humanitarian response. Field Implementation guidances are useful for the design and execution of humanitarian activities in the field.
The health of people, plants, and animals is directly affected by the environment around them. This includes impacts from air quality, water quality, soil pollutants, as well as disease from poorly managed solid waste, sewage, and the impacts of climate change – changing temperatures, storm intensity, changing rainfall patterns, and disease spread.
Even shelter design – availability of natural light, camp or settlement design – availability of green recreational spaces – have a significant impact on people’s feeling of safety, well-being, and mental health.
Ensure environmental determinants of health assessments consider the different impacts on women (e.g. cookstove smoke inhalation; feeling of safety when visiting external latrines or gathering natural resources), as well as on others – children, the elderly, sick, or disabled.
Air pollution
Soil pollution
Water pollution
Deforestation
Desertification
Eutrophication
Climate Change
Loss of biodiversity and ecosystems
Natural Resource Depletion
Soil erosion
Noise pollution
Visual Intrusion
Cultural acceptance
Impact on mental health
Ice loss/snowmelt
Increased intensity of storms/hurricanes
Increased drought/flood
1. Potential health impacts from air, water, and soil pollution
2. Potential health impacts from radiation, chemicals from industry
3. Health impacts from poor sewage and solid waste management/treatment
4. Potential impacts of climate change on human and flora and fauna health – temperature changes, changes in rainfall, changes in storm intensity, changes in pests and disease
5. Potential benefits from environmental cleanup and provision of green spaces for recreation
1. Potential health impacts from air, water, and soil pollution
2. Potential health impacts from radiation, chemicals from industry
3. Health impacts from poor sewage and solid waste management/treatment
4. Potential impacts of climate change on human and flora and fauna health – temperature changes, changes in rainfall, changes in storm intensity, changes in pests and disease
5. Potential benefits from environmental cleanup and provision of green spaces for recreation
1. Assess and mitigate potential air, water, and soil pollution health impacts
2. Assess and mitigate existing health impacts from radiation or chemicals or other contaminants from the industry. Locate shelters away from pollution sources
3. Assess and address likely health impacts from poor sewage and solid waste management/treatment
4. Assess likely impacts of climate change. Design shelter, infrastructure, and public service resilience.
5. Identify and promote benefits from environmental clean-up and provision of designated green spaces.
1. Conduct an assessment of potential health impacts from local air, water, and soil pollution. Plan to reverse or mitigate these or implement non-polluting alternatives through the shelter response
2. Assess existing health impacts from radiation or chemicals or other contaminants from industry. Plan to mitigate or avoid these or encourage alternatives. Plan for land zoning so people are not located proximate to pollutants
3. Assess existing and potential new health impacts from poor sewage and solid waste management/treatment. Provide new or upgraded shelters with appropriate sewage treatment and disposal and appropriate solid and liquid waste separation, composting, and management including re-use, repurposing, recycling.
4. Assess the likely impacts of climate change on people, flora, and fauna health, such as temperature changes, changes in rainfall, changes in storm intensity, changes in pests and disease. Plan to address these or build in resilience into shelter and shelter infrastructure/services, such as rainwater harvesting, flood resilience, natural heating/cooling / ventilation/light; storm resilience; greywater capture and re-use; suitably sized drainage channels or flood capture ponds and groundwater infiltration areas; consider the need for increasing slope stability through planting or stone gabions
5. Identify and promote benefits from environmental clean-up and provision of designated green spaces for recreation. Promote community gardens; design infrastructure to ensure potentially vulnerable people feel safe
Against a background of insecurity and protracted displacement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, tensions in 2016 over the recognition of traditional leaders led to an escalation of conflict between the national army and local militia in the Kasai region.
About 1.4 million people were displaced in the first half of 2017 across the region. In October 2017, a six-month system-wide Level 3 emergency was declared to respond to the scale of the crisis in the country.
Shelter and Non-Food Items (NFI) were identified amongst the key priorities in multisectoral assessments conducted in Kasai province. Despite the acute needs, the Shelter-NFI Cluster remained the most underfunded sector in the country in 2018 (less than 10% funded). Only 36% of the people were reached by March 2018 and very few humanitarian partners were implementing shelter activities.
The shelter working group established a National Shelter Strategy centred around four main interventions:
· collective center upgrades
· emergency shelter kits for displacement sites;
· conditional cash support for families hosting IDPs;
· material distribution and conditional cash transfer to support return.
The working group advocated for inclusive processes, focusing on capacity-building and owner-driven construction, as well as the use of local materials and housing typologies.
To identify the most vulnerable households and individuals, the Vulnerability Scorecard approach was used to target beneficiaries given the acute gaps between needs and available resources.
Developed in 2007 by the NFI Cluster, the approach used a ranking from 0 (no need) to 5 (extreme vulnerability) based on set criteria. For shelter, the scorecard was developed in 2014. Criteria for each household were selected from drop-down lists in a spreadsheet that calculated
the final scores.
Criteria were grouped into five categories:
· Humanitarian situation (see opposite table);
· Density/privacy within the shelter;
· Location (incl. tenure arrangement);
· Roof conditions; and
· General shelter conditions (incl. foundations and walls).
The organization applied additional vulnerability criteria to the Cluster scorecard. This reflected a focus on specific vulnerabilities, including safety, gender, age, and disability-related. A team of five enumerators was employed to conduct the initial assessments. In the target areas, the organization identified
average scores of 4.8/5 for shelter and 3.8/5 for NFI. IDPs, returnees, and host community members were all targeted.
The selection process was conducted in consultation with local community leaders and affected people to reduce tensions over the prioritization, including the definition of the selection criteria.
a.2 / democratic republic of the congo 2018 / CONFLICT (IDP+return) AFRICA
From: http://shelterprojects.org/shelterprojects2017-2018/ShelterProjects_2017-2018_lowres_web.pdf
Number of environmental determinants of health identified and addressed in shelter/camp/infrastructure design.
Prevention of environmental damage
Mitigation of environmental damage
Environmental enhancement
Time to assess the environmental determinants of health from existing local construction and shelter practices, solid waste and sewerage management, and other polluting activities. Time to plan to address these within planned humanitarian assistance activities.