Multi-site coordination, evictions and durable solutions

1Multi-site coordination

Beyond a single site, CCCM coordination is organised at area level: site mapping (number, type, population, land tenure, management agency), joint monitoring with the same indicators, consolidated gap analysis and prioritisation of sites without a site manager. DTM and site monitoring data feed into the response plan and the humanitarian needs overview.

Sites that are too small or too numerous to each have an agency are covered by mobile site management, and neighbourhoods where displaced people and hosts live together by area-based approaches, in liaison with local authorities. The aim is equitable service, not only in large, visible camps.

2Preventing and responding to evictions

In many contexts, eviction is the primary risk for spontaneous sites and collective centres. Prevention starts with land tenure monitoring: land status, written agreements, duration, any compensation. An alert system records threats and incidents, site by site.

Under the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and the United Nations principles on evictions, any relocation must include genuine consultation, reasonable notice, examination of alternatives, no violence and adequate rehousing. The CCCM cluster acts with the Protection cluster and the Housing, Land and Property (HLP) working group: mediation, advocacy, legal support, planning a dignified relocation if it is unavoidable.

3Preparing site closure

Responsible closure follows several steps: regular intentions surveys, information on return areas (go-and-see visits, information sessions), a closure plan shared with the authorities and residents, support for transport and return packages, attention to vulnerable people who cannot leave on their own, handover or dismantling of infrastructure and environmental rehabilitation of the land.

Households that cannot leave must not be left without a solution: a closure is not complete until every household has a safe destination of its choice.

4Durable solutions and transition to development

The IASC Framework on Durable Solutions (2010) sets out eight criteria: long-term safety and security, an adequate standard of living, access to livelihoods, restoration of housing, land and property, access to documentation, family reunification, participation in public affairs, and access to effective remedies and justice. The choice between return, local integration and settlement elsewhere belongs to the people themselves.

The site manager contributes by providing reliable data (profiles, intentions, vulnerabilities), making residents' voices heard and linking the site with development actors, local authorities and housing and livelihoods programmes. Durable solutions are a long process, led by the State, which humanitarian actors prepare without replacing it.

5Coordinating an area of sites: tools, prioritisation and contribution to the programme cycle

At the level of an area, a province or a country, the CCCM focal point or coordinator does not manage a site: they build the overall picture that makes it possible to allocate scarce resources between dozens or hundreds of sites. Their main product is a comparative, prioritised analysis, based on common data, that guides partners, donors and the other clusters.

The four basic tools

Prioritising sites: a severity matrix

Each national cluster defines its own method, often aligned with the joint intersectoral analysis framework used for the Humanitarian Needs Overview. The principle: combine several scored and weighted dimensions, then rank.

The ranking guides the deployment of mobile teams, requests to other clusters and pooled fund allocations. It is presented with its limitations (data reliability, inaccessible sites) and reviewed every quarter.

Covering sites without a site management agency

In many crises, a majority of sites have no site management agency at all. Coverage is built up in tiers: mobile site management for priority sites, trained community focal points for the others, remote monitoring by phone, and advocacy for funding. The percentage of sites (and people) covered by some form of site management is a key cluster indicator.

Contributing to the Humanitarian Programme Cycle

• Humanitarian Needs Overview: the CCCM cluster provides population data by site, the severity analysis and the estimate of people in need for its sector.
• Response plan: sectoral objectives, targets (people and sites covered by site management, sites that have benefited from risk mitigation, etc.), costs.
• Response monitoring: quarterly dashboards, gap reports to the Inter-Cluster Coordination Group.
• Pooled funds: the cluster prioritises the projects submitted according to the strategy and the severity matrix.

A CCCM coordinator's credibility rests on the quality of their site list and severity analysis. If the other clusters and donors use their figures, they can steer the response; if everyone has their own list, they are no longer coordinating anything.

6Preventing forced evictions: framework, alert system and graduated response

In urban crises and protracted displacement, eviction is often the primary threat facing residents of spontaneous sites and collective centres. A forced eviction deprives people of their shelter, their belongings, access to services and often their livelihoods; it causes secondary displacement, sometimes to more dangerous places.

The reference framework

• The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (1998) protect against arbitrary displacement and require that all alternatives be explored, that people be informed and consulted, and that any displacement be carried out in conditions of safety and dignity.
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (right to adequate housing) and General Comment No. 7 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on forced evictions.
• The UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement (2007): genuine consultation, reasonable notice, examination of alternatives, no violence, presence of observers, adequate relocation, compensation, no eviction that renders people homeless.
• The Kampala Convention (African Union, 2009) for States Parties.
• National law: land law, eviction procedure, protection of occupants.

The international framework does not prohibit all evictions: it requires that they respect procedural safeguards and leave no one homeless. The role of humanitarian actors is to ensure that these safeguards are respected, not to prevent a legitimate owner from recovering their property at all costs.

The monitoring and alert system

Records to keep for each site under threat

• Owner or authority managing the land, available documents, history of agreements.
• Nature, date and author of each threat, evidence (letters, testimonies).
• Population concerned and persons with specific needs.
• Steps taken, interlocutors, results, next deadline.
• Alternative options identified and their feasibility.

Negotiating with a landowner

Mediation succeeds more often than is generally believed when it starts early and is built on the owner's interests: compensation (modest rent paid by a programme, infrastructure left on the land, rehabilitation), a limited duration and a clear timetable, a commitment to restore the land, a guarantee that occupants will not claim ownership. The agreement is in writing, signed by the owner, the local authorities and the agency, and a copy is given to the residents' representatives. Negotiations are conducted with the Housing, Land and Property working group to avoid legitimising abusive claims or setting dangerous precedents.

Paying rent to prevent an eviction can be an effective solution, but it carries a recurring cost and may encourage other owners to make threats. Any decision of this kind is taken at cluster level, with common criteria and an exit strategy.

7Relocating, consolidating and closing a site: the step-by-step method

A planned relocation (when a site has to be vacated) and a closure (when residents leave for durable solutions) draw on the same skills: information, consultation, detailed planning, attention to vulnerable persons and follow-up after departure. The toolbox on planning relocations developed by UNHCR, IOM and Georgetown University (2017) and the CCCM cluster's guidance on site closure provide the framework.

Step 1: decide on solid grounds (3 to 6 months before)

• Reason for the closure or relocation: needs no longer present, conditions for return met, request from the owner, environmental risk, political decision. The reason determines the timetable and the level of advocacy required.
• Recent intentions survey (less than 3 months old), by household, disaggregated by sex and age of the head of household and by specific needs.
• Analysis of conditions in areas of destination: security, mines and explosive remnants of war, condition of housing, services, livelihoods, social cohesion. It involves the clusters and the DTM.

Step 2: inform and consult

• Information sessions by block, separating men and women where necessary, on the timetable, the options and the support available.
• Go-and-see visits: residents' representatives, including women, visit the areas of return or relocation and report back.
• Come-and-tell information sessions with the authorities and services of the areas of destination.
• Collection of concerns and complaints, with written responses.

Step 3: the closure plan

Step 4: implement

• Departures organised in small groups, with identity verification and packages handed over at departure or on arrival depending on security.
• Shelters dismantled by the households themselves, who take the reusable materials with them.
• Gradual closure of services: water is not cut off to push people to leave.
• Daily update of the remaining population.

Step 5: close and hand over

Final joint visit with the authorities, the owner and the host community; signed handover report for the land; closure report shared with the cluster, including lessons learned.

Quality indicator for a closure: the proportion of households that left for the destination they had chosen, and the proportion of households that, six months later, have not been displaced again. A rapid closure followed by secondary displacement is a failure.

8Worked example: the exit strategy for the Mbéla-Sud area

Fictional context: two years after the end of the fighting in the province of Nord-Talima, the Mbéla-Sud area has 14 sites (38,000 people). Six spontaneous sites are under threat of eviction, four collective centres have to be vacated, and two planned camps are stable. The intentions survey conducted by the DTM and the site management agencies shows: 50% of households wishing to return (about 19,000 people), 35% wishing to integrate locally in Mbéla (about 13,300 people), 15% undecided (about 5,700 people). The governor wants to "close the sites before the end of the year". The area CCCM focal point prepares a two-page exit strategy for the area coordination group.

1. The situation of the sites

Population of the six sites under threat of eviction: 4,200 + 3,800 + 2,600 + 2,300 + 1,900 + 1,600 = 16,400 people. Population of the collective centres: 3,300 people.

2. The principles of the strategy

• No closure without a chosen solution for each household; no service cuts to force departures.
• A timetable based on conditions rather than on a political date: the focal point proposes to the governor a three-phase timetable over 12 months, with visible milestones within the first three months.
• Equal support for all three options (return, local integration, settlement elsewhere), so that assistance packages do not push people towards return.
• Possible consolidation into Kibondo and Nzoro, which have a combined expansion capacity of 3,000 people, as a transitional solution for households with no other option.

3. The phased plan

4. Support by option

5. Indicators for monitoring the strategy

• Number of sites closed or transformed according to the plan, and number of households that have left a site for the destination of their choice.
• Number of forced evictions prevented, and number of households evicted without relocation (target: zero).
• Percentage of households followed up at 6 months that have not been displaced again and have access to safe housing.
• Percentage of vulnerable households that received individualised accompaniment.
• Number of infrastructure items handed over to public services under a signed agreement.

Response to the governor: "Twelve of the fourteen sites can be closed or transformed within twelve months, with visible milestones from the fourth month, provided conditions are met and funding is mobilised. Closing all the sites in three months would cause evictions, secondary displacement and tensions in the town."

9Durable solutions: criteria, measurement and transition to development

A durable solution is achieved when internally displaced persons no longer have specific assistance and protection needs linked to their displacement and can enjoy their human rights without discrimination on account of their displacement. The IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons (2010) sets eight criteria to measure this. The UN Secretary-General's Action Agenda on Internal Displacement (2022) has increased the attention paid to solutions and to the role of development actors.

The eight criteria and how to measure them

The Interagency Durable Solutions Indicator Library and the support of the Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS) make it possible to choose standardised indicators. The International Recommendations on IDP Statistics (IRIS, Expert Group on Refugee, IDP and Statelessness Statistics, EGRISS) govern the production of official statistics, including the measurement of the end of displacement.

The specific role of CCCM

• Provide reliable data: profiles, intentions, skills, vulnerabilities, movements after closure.
• Carry residents' voices into local and national durable solutions plans.
• Link sites to public services, housing and livelihoods programmes and civil documentation.
• Transform sites where relevant: a spontaneous site can become a neighbourhood if land tenure is regularised and services are integrated into municipal services.
• Withdraw in good time: hand over coordination to the authorities and development mechanisms without leaving a vacuum.

Variations by context

Common mistakes

• Confusing closure with a solution: a closed camp whose residents end up in an informal site in town has produced no solution.
• Return packages more generous than local integration support, which distort the choice.
• Outdated intentions surveys used for planning, even though intentions change with security and the seasons.
• Forgetting the remaining households, often the most vulnerable, once the majority has left.
• Abrupt withdrawal of humanitarian actors without handover to the authorities and development actors.

What donors and evaluators look at

• The voluntary, informed and dignified nature of departures, documented (information sessions, consent, complaints handled).
• Follow-up after departure and the rate of secondary displacement.
• The quality of coordination with development actors and authorities (joint plans, bridge funding).
• The environmental and land management of the closure (handover reports, final condition).
• The absence of forced evictions in the sites covered or, failing that, their documentation and the response provided.

10Interview questions and key references

Interview questions

1. "The authorities want to close all the sites in the city within one month. What do you do as CCCM focal point?"

A good answer recognises the legitimacy of the authorities' objective, presents data (intentions, conditions in areas of return, eviction threats), proposes a realistic timetable with rapidly visible milestones, mobilises the cluster, Protection and the Humanitarian Coordinator for advocacy, and recalls the safeguards: voluntary choice, information, no service cuts to force departures.

2. "A landowner has obtained a court ruling ordering the land to be vacated within 15 days."

It does not challenge the ruling but advocates for its enforcement in line with the safeguards: sufficient notice, alternatives, no violence, relocation. It mobilises the Housing, Land and Property working group for legal support, negotiates an extension, prepares a contingency relocation plan, informs residents and prepares the emergency response in case the eviction goes ahead.

3. "How do you prioritise 60 sites with two mobile teams?"

It describes a severity matrix based on common data (population, gaps, risks, eviction threats, site management presence), a ranking reviewed every quarter, support from community focal points for the other sites and quantified advocacy for additional resources.

4. "When does a return become a durable solution?"

It cites the IASC definition and eight criteria, explains the comparison with the non-displaced population, the importance of follow-up after return and the role of the authorities and development actors.

5. "What are the risks of a generous return package?"

It mentions a distorted choice, premature returns to dangerous areas, back-and-forth movements to receive assistance several times, tensions with non-displaced people, and proposes equivalent support for all options and follow-up after departure.

Key references

• IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons (2010).
• Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (United Nations, 1998).
• African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention, 2009).
• Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement (United Nations, 2007); General Comment No. 7 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
• Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons ("Pinheiro Principles", 2005).
• UN Secretary-General's Action Agenda on Internal Displacement (2022).
• A Toolbox: Planning Relocations to Protect People from Disasters and Environmental Change (UNHCR, IOM, Georgetown University, 2017).
• Interagency Durable Solutions Indicator Library and JIPS profiling tools.
• International Recommendations on Internally Displaced Persons Statistics (IRIS, EGRISS, 2020).
• Camp Management Toolkit (NRC, 2015), chapter on camp closure; Global CCCM Cluster guidance on site closure, mobile site management and area-based approaches.
• Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at Country Level (IASC).