CCCM

Area Based Approach

CCCM Pillar In- Out of Note
camp camp

Coordination & Info   Support authorities in multi-sectoral

Management coordination at Woreda level

Site Planning &   Minimal physical works, e.g. Community Info/

Development Centre (upgrading, partitioning, etc.)

Community Self-   Two-way liaison. Outreach by mobile teams to

Governance displacement affected population in HC; IDPs
access the Community Centre.
Capacity Building   Trainings normally focus on camp
management, but can be
Approaches

Synonyms: ‘Neighbourhood approaches’, settlement approach

Ten principles for ABA
Relevance of CCCM actors in area-based responses
Multi-sectorial

• Capacity building, Mentoring and advocacy

Advocating for durable solutions

Specific 'geographic areas with high needs

• Localised coordination of multiple stakeholders in 'a geographical

area'

Multi-stakeholders

• Ensuring dignified and equal access to information and feedback

mechanisms

Inclusive of whole population

• Ensuring participation and representation

the ‘specific geographical area’ for CCCM’s area-based approach can
be best applied to:
Reasons for adopting area-based approaches

If well designed and implemented area-based approaches can:

● create a ‘platform’: diversity of actors/ different capacities/ collective

response
● complement existing (governance) systems
● reduce tensions and inequalities; improve social cohesion
● effectively focus resources: multi-sector and multi-stakeholder approach
What can we learn from global experience: case studies (1)

Multi-sector, multi-agency assessment, planning, Participatory tools and approaches: •

coordination and implementation led to:
● Community-based assessments
● Shared prioritisation and planning
● Better communication between partners • Faster ● Mapping/ action planning/settlement
response to evolving needs planning/coordination
● More efficient implementation ● Implementation and monitoring helped to:
● Links between humanitarian and Development build trust
interventions
● Generate ownership; strengthen
High levels of engagement with all relevant community cohesion
stakeholders:
● Efficiently identify needs
● Develop consensus/shared response plans •
Impartiality and respect
● Manage expectations
● no key influencers were left behind ● Work with communities to solve complex
● improved capacity of local actors problems - Port-au-Prince)
● relationships between communities and
government
What can we learn from global experience case studies (2)
Challenges
● Targeting: tensions with residents in surrounding areas - Bangui
● Stakeholder engagement: Mapping, complexity and understanding of stakeholders - Mogadishu and Mosul
● Linking between scales: incorporating smaller-scale projects into city development plans or city
government plans into community-based planning – Tacloban

Enabling contexts
● sufficient funding as well as donor support - multi-sectoral working group, assessment and response plan -
Bangui Port-au-Prince
● existing multi-sectoral coordination - Mogadishu
● communities were less transient and more cohesive - Kampala
● local government was supportive – Tacloban

Scaling up: The case studies included examples of scaling-up area-based approaches through:
● pilot projects in specific areas - Colombia and Guatemala
● starting multi-sectoral coordination with just 2-3 core sectors – Mogadishu
How can area-based approaches be improved?
Focus on the quality of the characteristics:
● multi-sectoral, multi-agency assessments and focus on areas with high levels of
complex, inter-related and multi-sectoral need.
● people-centred and include meaningful engagement
● active participation of all stakeholders
● linked to wider city or regional plans and policies
● work with, and build on existing systems: address short-term needs - focusing on
longer-term outcomes and impacts
● sufficient funding / staff with adequate experience and expertise / allow sufficient time
● iterative, flexible and adaptive approaches
● multi-agency contribution
Area based/Mobile approach: Coordination mechanism
CCCM Mobile approach paper:
“Management and coordination of collective
settings”

Coordination mechanisms:

• Intra-area coordination

• Inter-area coordination

• area-level coordination of a cluster of smaller

sites within the same district, city, etc. Also
refer to Yemen case study, CCCM Case Study
Collection 2020, to be published.
How are area-based approaches different from neighbourhood, settlement, integrated
or multi-sectoral approaches?
● The most common in the humanitarian
literature are neighbourhood, settlement,
integrated, holistic, and multi-sectoral
approaches.
Neighbourhood and settlement approaches:
● These terms are typically used to describe an
area-based approach at a certain scale (eg
the neighbourhood is the ‘unit’ of intervention).
Integrated, holistic or multi-sectoral:
● Multi-sector or integrated programmes: are not
always participatory, nor are they necessarily
geographically targeted
○ For example, they are located somewhere, but their
entry point or targeting strategy would not include the
whole population living in the area in which they are
working).
● ‘holistic’ approaches. this term describes multi-
sectoral programmes, but from the perspective of
the community.
● in some instances the term ‘integrated’ takes on a
second meaning, and is used to describe
programmes that span across, or accommodate,
transition from relief, to recovery, to reconstruction.
 Enabling contexts

ABA were more likely to be successful in contexts where:

● sufficient funding as well as donor support

● an existing multi-sectoral coordination system or culture
● communities were less transient and more cohesive
● local government was supportive and area-based programmes were
aligned with government policies and plans
Resources
● https://cccmcluster.org/resources