Participation, risks and exit

1Governance and residents' participation

Residents are not passive beneficiaries: they are the ones who know the site's problems. Governance is organised through representative structures: central committee, block leaders, sector committees (water, health, security, complaints), groups of women, young people and persons with disabilities.

• Equitable representation of women (the aim is parity on committees) and of minority groups.
• Selection by election or consensus, limited terms, written terms of reference, signed code of conduct.
• Vigilance against committee capture by self-appointed leaders or armed groups.

The site manager trains committees, checks that information flows both ways and also consults less visible groups directly, for example in separate focus group discussions.

2Complaints, feedback and communication

A complaints and feedback mechanism (CFM) must be accessible to everyone: suggestion boxes, help desks at the site office, a toll-free hotline, mobile staff, committees. It must be known, confidential, safe and suited to people who cannot read.

Each piece of feedback is recorded, referred to the right service provider and followed up until a response is given to the person: this is the feedback loop. Sensitive complaints (sexual exploitation and abuse, fraud, abuse of power) follow a separate confidential channel to PSEA focal points and specialised services, never public posting. Trends are analysed and shared back with residents.

3Reducing risks: fire, flood, eviction

A site concentrates risks. The site manager maps them with residents and prepares a preparedness and response plan:

• Fire: clear firebreaks, distance between shelters, fuel-efficient stoves, water or sand points, trained fire watch committees, evacuation plan.
• Flood: drainage maintained before the rainy season, relocation of shelters in low-lying areas, raised latrines, stocks of materials.
• Eviction: written land agreements, dialogue with landowners and authorities, monitoring of threats, advocacy. A forced eviction without consultation, notice or alternative is contrary to international law.

Other risks are monitored continuously: epidemics, tensions with the host community, gender-based violence, presence of weapons.

4Out of camps, closure and durable solutions

When displaced people are dispersed, out-of-camp approaches are adopted: mobile site management (a team covers several small sites with regular visits and local committees) and area-based approaches, which organise coordination across a neighbourhood or locality, for displaced people and the host population alike.

The closure of a site is prepared with residents: intentions survey, information on return areas, transport support, handover or dismantling of infrastructure, rehabilitation of the land. The IASC framework recognises three durable solutions: return, local integration and settlement elsewhere in the country. A solution is durable when the person no longer has specific needs linked to their displacement and enjoys their rights without discrimination. The choice must be free, informed and voluntary.

5Setting up representative governance: the method

Site governance structures are often set up in a rush, with the first leaders who come forward. Three months later, the team discovers that the central committee speaks on behalf of everyone but represents only one clan, that women sit on it only on paper, and that distribution lists have become a source of income. Fixing this costs far more than getting it right at the start. The Minimum Standards for Camp Management call for structures that are representative, inclusive, known to residents and accountable to them.

Step 1: map existing power (weeks 1 to 3)

• Who are the traditional, religious and administrative leaders (chiefs of villages of origin), the youth and women leaders, the influential traders?
• Which communities of origin, which languages, which tensions?
• Who controls what today: lists, access to land, water, distributions?
• Who is never visible: single women, persons with disabilities, minorities, new arrivals, older persons?

Method: individual interviews, focus group discussions separated by sex and age, observation of distributions and meetings. The results remain internal: a power map that is shared carelessly can put people in danger.

Step 2: define the rules with residents (weeks 3 to 6)

A model is not parachuted in. The site manager proposes non-negotiable principles (equitable representation of women, inclusion of minority groups and persons with disabilities, limited terms of office, no links with armed groups, a code of conduct, a ban on any form of payment or favour in exchange for access to assistance) and discusses the rest with residents: number of representatives per block, selection method, length of term, role of traditional leaders.

Step 3: organise the selection

1. All residents informed, in all languages, at least two weeks in advance.
2. Open candidacies, with specific support for women candidates (separate information sessions, childcare during meetings).
3. Selection by block: secret ballot or queue voting, or consensus verified in separate assemblies of men and women. The basic principle to guarantee parity: one seat reserved for a woman and one for a man in each block.
4. Observation by the team and, where possible, by the local authorities; results posted and announced.
5. An appeal period of a few days, handled by a joint commission.

Step 4: formalise and train

The initial training (two to three days) covers: the role of the site management agency and of service providers, service standards, humanitarian principles, code of conduct and PSEA, referral of sensitive cases, meeting facilitation and conflict management.

Step 5: check and correct continuously

• Do the elected women speak up, and are their proposals taken up? Observe, and organise separate consultations.
• Do residents know their representatives? A simple question in the quarterly survey is enough.
• Are complaints against committee members dealt with? Their number and follow-up are an indicator of the health of governance.

Compensating committee members is a sensitive issue: without support, only the better-off can devote time to the committee; with high allowances, the position becomes a power stake. The rule is to follow the cluster's guidance, to stay modest, and to pay for specific tasks rather than titles.

6The site complaints and feedback mechanism: design and operation

The Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) requires that affected people participate in the decisions that concern them (Commitment 4) and have access to safe and responsive mechanisms to handle their complaints (Commitment 5). The IASC commitments on accountability to affected people and protection from sexual exploitation and abuse point in the same direction. At site level, the site management agency is often the common entry point for feedback concerning all service providers.

Designing the mechanism with residents

1. Consult by group (women, men, youth, older persons, persons with disabilities, minorities): how do they prefer to report a problem? Whom do they trust? What prevents them from complaining (fear of losing assistance, illiteracy, distance)?
2. Choose several complementary channels: information desk at the site office, mobile staff in the blocks, toll-free hotline (often shared by several organisations), locked boxes opened by two people, committees, separate listening sessions.
3. Set categories and timeframes: acknowledgement of receipt, response time, escalation route.
4. Define the pathways: who receives, who handles, who responds, who checks closure.
5. Raise awareness of the mechanism: repeated messages, illustrated posters, radio, sessions in the blocks.

Categories and handling times (example)

The feedback register

Minimum fields: unique number, date, channel, block, sex and age group of the person (if they agree to give them), category, summary description, organisation concerned, date forwarded, response provided, date of response to the person, the person's satisfaction, closure date. Category 5 complaints do not appear in this shared register: only a number and the note "forwarded under the confidential procedure" appear there; the details are kept by the authorised focal point.

Closing the loop

• Every person who lodged a named complaint receives an individual response, even a negative one ("the ration cannot be increased because...").
• Anonymous complaints receive a collective response: notice boards, block meetings, radio.
• Every month, the trend analysis is presented at the site meeting and to the committees; every quarter, a public feedback session explains what has changed thanks to the feedback received.

A mechanism that receives very few complaints is not a sign of satisfaction: it is often a sign that people do not know about it, do not trust it or are afraid of it. Volume, the diversity of the people who use it and the response rate are the real indicators.

7Analysing and managing site risks: from mapping to contingency planning

A site concentrates thousands of people in a small space, with flammable materials, shared sanitation facilities and an already vulnerable population. The Minimum Standards require the site management agency to contribute to a safe environment, which involves a risk analysis conducted with residents and updated at least before each high-risk season.

Step 1: identify the hazards

Through a transect walk of the site with the committees, separate focus group discussions and a participatory map, the team identifies: flood-prone areas and points where water accumulates, excessive densities, cooking fires, fuel storage, makeshift electrical installations, dark or isolated areas, poorly located latrines, flashpoints with the host community, places where armed men gather.

Step 2: assess and prioritise

Fire prevention: the standard set-up

• Respect for distances: at least 2 m between shelters (ideally twice their height), 30 m firebreaks every 300 m, checked every month.
• Water points or drums of water and sand, fire beaters, distributed by community; monthly checks.
• Fire watch committees trained in each block, with an alarm signal known to all (whistle, bell).
• Awareness-raising: cooking outdoors or in sheltered kitchens, supervision of fires, ban on candles in plastic-sheeting shelters, caution with electrical connections.
• Coordination with local fire services where they exist: vehicle access via the main roads.

Responding to a serious incident: the example of a fire

The site contingency plan

It runs to a few pages: scenarios (influx of new arrivals, flooding, fire, epidemic, attack or armed threat, eviction), trigger thresholds, roles of each actor, prepositioned stocks, contacts, the procedure for communicating with residents and for suspending or resuming activities. It is tested through a simulation exercise at least once a year.

Safety audits conducted with groups of women and girls (walks through the site by day and by night, maps of areas perceived as dangerous) are the most effective tool for reducing the risks of gender-based violence linked to site layout, in line with the IASC Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action.

8Worked example: the Ngara site before the rainy season

Fictional context: the Ngara site, on an alluvial plain in the province of Lac-Sombé, hosts 9,800 people (about 1,960 households) spread over 8 blocks. Last year, 300 shelters were flooded in August, and two dry-season fires destroyed 45 shelters. The central committee has 15 members, 2 of them women, all from the two majority communities of origin. The rainy season starts in 10 weeks. The site management agency, the fictional NGO "Horizons Partagés", has a risk mitigation budget of USD 38,000.

1. Risk analysis conducted with residents

A walk through the site with the block committees and four focus group discussions (women, men, youth, older persons and persons with disabilities) produce the risk map. Findings: blocks 6, 7 and 8 are in the low-lying part; the main drain is blocked over 600 m; 210 shelters in blocks 7 and 8 are in areas that flooded last year; both fires started in indoor kitchens in block 3, where shelters are less than 1 m apart; women in block 8 avoid the latrines at night because there is no lighting.

2. The 10-week action plan

3. Strengthening the representation of women and minorities

The current committee (13 men, 2 women) was appointed by the customary chiefs when the site opened. Rather than dissolving it, which would trigger conflict at the worst possible time, the agency proposes a transition timetable validated at a general assembly:

• Immediately: creation of a women's committee consulted on the rainy season plan; two representatives of this committee invited to sit on the central committee.
• In three months, after the critical period: new selections by block under the rule of one seat for a woman and one for a man per block (16 seats), plus three seats for persons with disabilities, youth and older persons, i.e. a committee of 19 members with at least 8 women.
• Minority communities, present mainly in blocks 5 and 8, are guaranteed representation through selection by block; a specific dialogue is held with their leaders to encourage candidacies.
• The customary chiefs retain a recognised advisory role, which reduces resistance.

4. The quarterly feedback analysis

The overall rate of responses within the timeframe (78%) is just below the 80% threshold set by the agency. The weakness lies in exclusion complaints: they require door-to-door verification and touch on governance. This finding reinforces the decision to reconstitute the central committee.

What the example shows: risk analysis, governance and complaints are not three separate activities. The same blocks, the same groups and the same failures appear in all three. An effective site manager cross-checks sources before deciding.

9Out of camp: mobile site management, area-based approaches and collective centres

In most crises, the majority of displaced people live outside camps: with host families, in rented accommodation, in small informal sites or in collective centres. The CCCM cluster has developed approaches to provide them with site management functions (information, participation, coordination, service monitoring) without creating a camp.

Mobile site management: setting up the system

1. Map small sites and areas of concentration with the DTM and the authorities: population, land tenure status, services present, accessibility.
2. Group sites into realistic circuits according to distance and security.
3. Size the teams: for example, a mobile team of four (a team leader, two mobilisers including one woman, a monitoring officer) can cover about ten small sites with a visit every 10 to 15 days, depending on distances.
4. Appoint focal points in each site (one woman and one man), trained to pass on information and to report gaps and emergencies between visits.
5. Use light tools: a one-page monitoring form, a messaging group or phone line for focal points, a multi-site dashboard.
6. Coordinate by area: a monthly meeting per area rather than per site, with service providers and local authorities.

Area-based approaches

An area-based (or settlement-based) approach defines a geographical unit (neighbourhood, municipality, group of villages) and organises coordination for its entire population, displaced or not, in close liaison with the local authorities. The site management agency often runs a community centre or information centre there: referral to services, recording of feedback, community activities, legal aid sessions. The benefits are reduced tensions with hosts, support to existing public services and a natural groundwork for durable solutions.

Collective centres

The UNHCR and IOM Collective Centre Guidelines (2010) recall that a collective centre must be a temporary last resort and that its closure must be prepared from the day it opens. Points of attention:

• Privacy and protection: partitioning by family, separate spaces for single persons, sex-segregated and lockable sanitation facilities.
• Fire and structural safety: clear emergency exits, fire extinguishers, ban on stoves in rooms, structural assessment by an engineer.
• Density: number of people per room and surface area per person monitored as on a site.
• Competing use: an occupied school deprives children of schooling; a timetable for vacating it is negotiated with the education sector, the authorities and the families.
• Agreement with the owner: duration, compensation, inventory of condition, rehabilitation.

Preparing closure from now on

Closure will be covered in depth on day 4. From the care and maintenance phase onwards, the site manager lays the groundwork: questions on intentions in every profiling exercise, documented baseline condition of the land, infrastructure designed to be handed over to the host community, early links with housing, livelihoods and civil documentation actors.

10Variations, common mistakes and the donor's perspective

Adapting participation and risk management to the context

Common mistakes

• Women appointed but without real power: token seats, meetings held in the evening. Check effective participation, not just attendance.
• Complaints mechanism run by the committees: complaints against the committees never come through. There must always be at least one direct and independent channel.
• Sensitive complaints handled like ordinary complaints: recorded in the shared spreadsheet, discussed at meetings. This is a serious failure that puts the survivor at risk.
• Risk plan written in the office without a site walk or consultation, which ignores the dangerous areas known to residents.
• Rebuilding identically after a fire, recreating the densities that allowed it to spread.
• Forgetting small sites in favour of the visible large camp, even though needs there are often more severe.

What donors and evaluators look at

• The composition of governance structures (share of women, inclusion of persons with disabilities and minorities) and how they actually function.
• How the complaints mechanism works: volume, diversity of users, timeframes, response rate, examples of changes achieved.
• The existence of a PSEA procedure known to residents and staff, and of a confidential pathway.
• Evidence of seasonal preparedness: plan, budget, implementation before the season, lessons learned afterwards.
• Coverage of out-of-camp displaced populations where the project provides for it, with dedicated indicators.

11Interview questions and key references

Interview questions

1. "You discover that the central committee is selling places on the distribution lists. What do you do?"

A good answer first protects the people who reported the facts (confidentiality), verifies the information independently, informs the distribution service provider and the cluster focal point, organises a verification of the lists that bypasses the committee, and initiates a review of governance in line with the terms of reference (removal procedure). It avoids public humiliation, which would create violent conflict.

2. "How do you ensure that women genuinely participate in the governance of a site?"

It cites seats reserved per block, suitable times and venues, childcare, training, women's committees with a real mandate, separate consultations, and monitoring of their actual influence on decisions.

3. "A complaint of sexual exploitation against a partner's employee comes in via the hotline."

It describes the survivor-centred approach: listening, safety, information on services, referral to assistance with consent, confidential transmission within 24 hours to the PSEA focal point or the inter-agency mechanism, no personal investigation, no sharing at meetings.

4. "What is your priority ten weeks before the rainy season?"

It proposes a participatory risk analysis, clearing of drainage, voluntary relocation of shelters in low-lying areas, prepositioning, early warning messages and a simulation exercise, with a timetable and a budget.

5. "How do you manage 25 small, scattered sites with a single team?"

It explains mobile site management: mapping, circuits, visit frequency, trained focal points, light tools, area-based coordination, prioritisation according to vulnerability and gaps.

Key references

• Camp Management Toolkit (NRC, 2015): chapters on community participation, complaints handling, environment and safety and security.
• Minimum Standards for Camp Management (CCCM Cluster, 2021).
• Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS), Commitments 4 and 5.
• IASC commitments on accountability to affected people and protection from sexual exploitation and abuse.
• IASC Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action (2015), CCCM thematic area.
• Global CCCM Cluster tools on women's participation, mobile site management and area-based approaches.
• Collective Centre Guidelines: UNHCR and IOM (2010).
• The Sphere Handbook (2018), Shelter and Settlement chapter (fire safety, site layout).