 i'w gweithio'n gweithio i'w'r hyn sydd wedi'i gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio, a this is where we need your input. Please share to Jamboard your solutions, your ideas. Maybe you've experienced some similar things and you've had ways that that you've tried, things that you've seen that have worked, or maybe things that haven't. It'd be really good to hear from your experiences. That's one of the things today, it's all about us sharing our experiences but it's not providing shiny, perfect solutions. It's about being real about what we've tried and thinking what could we try differently and what else might work. I think that's the important part of this. Thank you so much for being with us. First of all, I just want to share a quick poll to see where you're coming from with this. So there's three questions there. So if you could just fill those in. So which sector do you primarily identify with? I know it's not always that easy to identify that. But if there is something, it would be good to get a sense of that. Have you used due diligence in your work? Is that the term you've heard before? Is it something you've come across? Maybe you're not sure, but maybe yes. And similarly, if you did use that due diligence processes as a way of working and approaching things, did that create challenges for you? Was that something that was helpful or not? So just a bit of a sense of that. And I'll just allow that to run for another 20 or so seconds. And then we will see the results. OK, 10 more seconds. And OK, so you're probably all aware the meeting is being recorded. So I'm just going to end the polling and then we can share the results of that so you can see. So we can see that quite a number of us, 48% round from a protection background. And then you can see froning through the different backgrounds that people have. Have you used due diligence in your work? So yes, a number of you have 62%. That's quite a high proportion. And then maybe so maybe that is part of what we're talking about as we're working and did it create challenges. So just over half of you there saying yes, it did. So that shows, I think, how pertinent today's conversation is. But thank you for joining in with that. And great. So now we will hear from Kirsty. Thanks a lot and hi to everyone. I won't take up too much of the time before we get into the excellent presentations, but I just wanted to frame our discussions today. So I'm going to make three really brief points. The first one is I wanted to talk about the background to HRP due diligence in humanitarian response. And we'll see from we've seen from the polls that there's a lot of you from different sectors and that that's fantastic. So this is going across all of the different sectors. The second point I wanted to highlight really was to operational challenges. There are many more and we will hear in the discussions. And the third one, the third point I wanted to make was just to propose some questions for us to consider when we're listening to the presentations so that we can get some real insights into their from their experience and to frame the discussions afterwards. So the first point, the background of due diligence. What is it and why well as many of you on the call I already saw we're part of this way back in 2013 at least probably going back further from the shelter sector. There was the global shelter cluster provided a guidance on land rights and shelter due diligence standard in 2013. And this is recognizing the risk that shelter programming may cause harm and a lot of the problems around that because we operate in really complex environments for housing and land and property rights. So obviously we all know that housing that land conflict can be a cause of the conflict land issues as a cause of the conflict. And it can also be exacerbated and as a result of the conflict and here we're talking about expropriation of property evictions and secondary occupation. So when we're operating in humanitarian response we're operating in a really unstable environment. We also know for example that most of the world's land rights are not registered and most people are not owners. So this is a recognition of the difficulties that shelter colleagues were facing. And a real incentive not to cause harm and to learn lessons. So for example where we had in the past increased conflict or cause evictions or wasted funding or altogether just undermine the humanitarian response. This was an attempt really coherent one by the shelter cluster and with with supporting partners to try to get ahead of that because it is complicated. It's complicated as well because we're working in informal settlements in complex urban environments has been something that has been discussed in the last few years in particular. So the question was how can we provide a humanitarian response across shelter, camp management or wash as well. It's great that we've got some wash people on the call that takes into account the complexities of housing and land dynamics and doesn't make things worse. And to do that, one of the critical concepts that shelter and others are working with is what is secure enough from the point of view of humanitarians. As well as for the point of view of people who are receiving the shelter or working the shelter and the landowners and the other populations around that. So those are really quite a complicated issue there. And that of course depends on the type of modality. We're looking across the range from the more traditional people returning home after conflict to their homes where they consider themselves to be owners. Whether or not they have documentation to upgrades of housing to provide accommodation for refugees or informal settlements and camps that we're working to support. So there's a huge range of modalities and each one of those has their own considerations of what is secure enough. How can we make sure when we're programming that we are understanding the background to the land rights to completing claims and not to make things worse understanding local tenure arrangements and how they might play out through our interventions. And of course this is different in each context. So one of the most important initiatives over the years is recognizing all the work that the operational responses have done to take those guidelines and to adapt them. And I know many of you on the call have been part of adapting those to different contexts to name just a few of them there have been in South Sudan and we'll hear from today in Iraq in the Syria cross border program and from Bangladesh as well. So one of those has taken those global standards and try to really understand what that means in the operational context working together on what is secure enough and how that can support programming as opposed to make sure that it makes it too difficult or impossible. So just to conclude this point is really that this was seen in the revised sphere standard this year in the shelter chapter there is now a security of tenure standard in the sphere handbook. And that really the first point on that is recognizing that due diligence is is is one of the critical steps in humanitarian shelter response. And I know again many of you on the call were part of revising that sphere handbook and we were all working together for that sphere for the security of tenure standard operational challenges the second point now. Of course, as I said it's complicated all of you on the call probably know much better than me what the challenges are facing when you've been trying to implement that standard. Again what is secure enough is a really fine balance and I think it would be interesting to hear from our presenters and from the discussants as well. It's not about the legal standard it's not about legal ownership documents this is not possible in most of the places we work. And so having that as a really high opera standard is not going to be something that supports the operation. A good reminder of this is when I've been working with the humanitarian mine action colleagues when we're balancing getting permission to clear land. Against, you know, making sure that when when that's happening you're getting the right permission or you're not creating conflict, but at the same time obviously that's a life saving activity when you're looking at the results of being able to clear that land from mines and unexploded ordinance. So, and again this is not about the law or unnecessarily having legal ownership documents but it's about balancing rights and I think Haiti, for example, it's got a really good way of looking at that from the perspective of lessons learned. And that it's about understanding how to negotiate the rights of the landowners visit the IDPs and seeing how that can be negotiated and again, we're hopefully going to hear from the presenters. This is often not about going in there and expecting some kind of legal certainty but being able to communicate well on and balance and negotiate in order to implement programs. The second challenge just very quickly is how to have a joint response across the sectors. So here, all of these different sectors are approaching due diligence in some way in their programming, shelter, camp management and wash. Often they can be different in the different approaches because there are different modalities and I think from our wash colleagues perspective, sometimes these are some of the most critical interventions to have due diligence on when they're changing the land use and perhaps that's something that we need to work more to support in the future and I'm sure Manasa will talk about that. The answers are not in the global guidance. It's not about more guidance but it's really about digging into the operational realities, the discussions and the problem solving that has already been happening on the ground and trying to really draw a lessons learned from that and how to improve. So questions for today to consider in the presentations again. How has secure enough been negotiated in each context. How did it work and what problems arose from that due diligence standard. Did it cause too many problems. And how did how did people deal with that and linked to that the second question what has been the role of the different sectors sectors what unique value added do they bring to those discussions. For example, it's often due diligence the home of it can be either with with shelter colleagues and they have driven the initiatives on operationalizing the standard in many of these contexts but equally, it can be in camp management because they are the ones in some context who are having to deal with that first or or the most and so how do we provide space for those different sectors to hold the due diligence discussions and provide input into that. And since there's so many protection people on the call. I think it's really worth reflecting around the role of the protection sector or protection cluster in these contexts, often the protection sector or cluster sees itself as as a standard holder. And in some cases that's really useful and in others that has been to set an almost impossible standard in some of our due diligence operationalization. It's been to set a standard that has been so high that it's not actually possible to achieve that degree of legal certainty in implementing a shelter or a camp management response. So in that case, how has that worked and what is the solution to some of those issues and how do we bring those two viewpoints closer together. And if it is in the case in some operations for example that it will cause too much harm or it's not possible to achieve even a minimum standard of due diligence. What is been the response has the humanitarian community come together has the protection colleagues been able to hold discussions on that in a way that is both advocating for change and at the same time providing a united front around some of those discussions or are the operational responses in the sense of the camp management and shelter and wash having to go in and do those unilateral discussions and make those decisions and take those fights up at individual level when in fact that would benefit from a united response that brings in the value added of all of the sectors. So I think I'm looking forward to learning from all the operational responses and consideration of the people of the call on some of the answers to those so that we can really learn and perhaps prepare better our understanding of how to operationalize the due diligence standard with a much more coherent and realistic response in the future. Thank you very much for your time and I'm looking forward to the presentations. Great. Thank you so much, Kirsty. That was really interesting. I think a couple of things to be really thinking about there as we listen to our colleagues. What is secure enough? How do we think about joint responses across sectors? Who drives due diligence and what's the role of the protection sector and cluster in these things? How does that work? So thank you. That's really, really great. I'm really pleased to introduce our next presenter. So Megan Kirby is going to talk to us about work in South Sudan. So yeah, Megan, if you'd like to begin, that would be fantastic. Hi everybody. Thank you very much. I'm very grateful for the chance to present to you today. And I would like to echo something that Kirsty said. I mean, this is a case study I'm going to share with you that is about what is secure enough, not only for the IDPs and their situation they're in and those who are serving, but also for us as humanitarians and as a humanitarian organization feeling it's the right decision to move forward with an intervention. So this case study I'm sharing with you today is not really a success story. It is definitely filled with challenges, but I think it's important that we talk about those challenges and we share them because that's the means by which we can all learn. So as you can see, as I hope you can see at least, our story is starting out here in Abiai. Abiai is a contested territory between Sudan and South Sudan. It's claimed by both countries. It's been the home of a lot of oil production and it has been the site of a lot of conflict over the years. But that conflict now is not between national governments. It is rather between distinct ethnic groups and tribes that have different land use patterns in the same areas. So, Jim, perhaps if you can change to the next slide. Anyway, I have another slide here, but to continue the two main groups that are relevant to us. Thanks. Are the Angok Dinka and the Miseria. So the Angok Dinka are a settled agriculturalist group. They're primarily from the south further, where the Miseria are pastoralist, semi-nomadic, and they travel with their cattle south through these migration corridors and these pathways that are internationally recognized from Sudan into South Sudan, primarily to graze their cows and to bring them to water sources found in the southern part of the Abiai box. And as you can see, there's a river that flows through the sort of bottom third, and that's the destination for a lot of their their cattle. So this different usage of land is at the heart of the conflict that led to the situation I'm going to talk about today. The Angok Dinka and the Miseria have engaged in raids and attacks and revenge killings upon one another for a long time. But this was really coming to a head at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020 this year. And on the 22nd of January, a band of armed Miseria men attacked for Dinka villages. And those villages, as you can see, are located in the pop-out box on the right here. Colom, Nung, Dokara, and Amiat. And in this attack, 33 people were killed, 18 were injured, and 15 children were kidnapped. So also in this, in this attack, 32 houses were burned, and approximately 4,800 people as a result fled south to Abiai town and required immediate life sustaining and life saving support. And I would just like to make a note about the photo here. The photo on the left is indeed from this 22nd of January attack in Colom. However, the photo on the right, it is from Abiai. It is also from an intercommunal attack, but it's from a few years before, so just for the sake of clarity. So these IDPs had come south to Abiai town and were seeking shelter in essentially a burned out school building that didn't have a roof or doors or windows and seeking shelter under the shade of one tree, basically. So, although there was a borehole in the vicinity and WFP began providing food almost immediately, this was a very rough place to stay. There were extremely limited resources, limited firewood, essentially no protection from attacks from the elements from the weather, even from the sun. So it was, and also size wise, it was just inadequate for the people who were residing there. So, of course, IOM wanted to provide emergency shelter support for these IDPs. And, as fate would have it, essentially right across the road from the school building was a parcel of land that had already been graded and demined and compacted and designated for communal use. And I think, Jim, I've got the next on that on the next slide. This land had been cleared and set aside for use as a vegetable market and the community had actually already allowed this land to be set aside and had done a due diligence process on securing the rightful owners and the legitimisation to use it. Unisfa, the Peacekeeping Force in Abie, wanted to move the existing market, which was right outside of their gate, further north to sort of decongest the area. And this site was designated and you can see perhaps in the background of this photo, that's a vegetable market building that IOM actually had already constructed on this site. So, we had already been engaged with this land for a different purpose, but it was essentially ready to go. And so seemed to be the perfect solution for these IDPs. So, we immediately began to seek clearance to construct emergency shelters for the IDPs here on the site. And as such, beginning to progress through our own due diligence process, we contacted and consulted the responsible power brokers and parties in the area. And in this case, seeing as the land was held and owned by the government, those parties were the RRC, which is the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, and the local office of the Ministry of Land Housing and Urban Development. And it is a bit of a slight complication in this area that this is in a contested territory and the relevant local authorities and relevant law even are a bit fuzzy with Sudan's claim on the land as well. But South Sudanese authorities are generally recognized and South Sudanese law is adhered to. So, we sought approval from those two entities to move forward with building shelters on this land. However, quite dishearteningly, both of these organizations initially refused to take responsibility for this process or to allow this process to move forwards, claiming that the responsibility rested with each other. The RRC, who is responsible for humanitarian issues and displacement of people, a displacement of IDPs, they claimed that this was a land issue purely and had nothing to do with them. The Ministry of Land Housing and Urban Development made the opposite suggestion saying this isn't really about the land itself. This is about assistance to IDPs and humanitarian need, and so therefore RRC has to be the one to sign off on this. We can't take responsibility for it. So, to sort of clear this fog of confusion about responsibility, we as IOM drafted a basic contract to be modified and to be reviewed and agreed upon by whichever government authority would choose to be signatory and the leaders of the IDP communities. And this contract codified very basic rights, the responsibilities, the limitations regarding the use of this land and this site. And it also secured a temporary amount of time I had initially written two years in the contract knowing we wouldn't get it, hoping we would get a year of security of tenure and protection from eviction for the IDPs. However, this process didn't move along by the development of documentation and facilitation of discussions and negotiation on our end. And while this is going on, of course, quite frustratingly, the IDPs continued to live in very rough conditions right across the street, which is, I can't even say how frustrating this is. You know, we had our shelter materials at the ready. We had the site prepped and ready to go. We have progressed through our due diligence at this point and ensured that the relevant power brokers had been consulted and that there were no outstanding claims to the land, but yet solution did not did not come. So after numerous failed meetings and a lack of resolution, we decided that it was incumbent upon us essentially to threaten to pull out from providing support at all. And of course, we were very hesitant to do so. We had no desire to to retract the support, but we needed this minimum guarantee that our investment in time and materials to say nothing of the protection concerns and the protection guarantees of the IDPs would be there. And we realized that we can't engage in work that would potentially cause further harm or further displacement to the individuals on the site and potentially cause reputational or operational problems for us going forward. So, happily to conclude, and we can move to the next slide. After about three weeks of delay and many heated meetings, the RC did concede to sign off on a maximum of six months tenure for the IDPs on the site, which is less than we hoped for, but enough to proceed with. And the construction of 109 family shelters proceeded. That's about 650 to 700 individuals who were housed. And we constructed single room shelters also just as a side note, because of the pandemic starting and concerns about health and overcrowding. In so doing, we also were able to assist fewer people as the material and size requirements for individual shelters are greater. So the site is functional and operational and continues to house people to this day, but the problem remains and this problematic situation remains. It's clear that the IDPs are not very welcome to stay on the site, and it's also clear that they cannot really return to their village in peace knowing that they are amidst the migration corridors of the Miseria and that tension remains. So it's I'm leaving this off without a great conclusion because there isn't one, but this raised a number of big questions for me, and I think some of these are very similar to what Kirsty mentioned earlier. The biggest question I hope we can have a chance to discuss is how do we know as practitioners when the right thing to do is nothing. Because we advocate for that within our due diligence guidelines as as a viable option. You know, we don't want to do any harm. We don't want to step in where we're not certain about the unscrupulous decision making or potentially questionable motivations of partners we're working with, but it's an awful decision to make. So are there red lines on making this choice? When do you compromise your your principles or potentially jeopardize your future ability to aid people to aid people in the moment? I know there are no hard answers to these questions, but that's what came to mind as we progress through this. So I will leave it there and I'm very grateful for your time and your interest and your attention. And I look forward to the discussion afterwards. Thank you. Thank you so much, Megan. That was really insightful and a really key question raised there. How do we know when the right thing is to do nothing? How do we know how to action that idea of do no harm? I think that's a key question that I know a number of people have been asking recently. So that reminds me to remind you that we want to hear from you. So please use the jam boards, use the chat to maybe you've had experience where you've had to make that choice. Maybe you've faced a similar challenge. So we'd love to hear that upon the jam boards if you can do that. And yes, and we'll post the links again to the jam boards in the chat so you can follow those. That would be fantastic. Great. Thank you. So now we're going to move to Bangladesh to Deepika who's going to speak to us about the Rohingya refugee response. So Deepika, over to you. Hi everyone. Thank you so much for the opportunity to present on the Rohingya response in Bangladesh. So the due diligence work that we have started, we've just only started in April of this year. So obviously it's not much of a success story in itself because we're still, you know, trying to operationalize and implemented. But it just gives a good background of what sort of things we've involved in it and also how we really tried to make it as practical as possible. So this is probably what Christie mentioned, not to, as much as possible, not to get it stuck on just the legal framework, but move it a bit beyond that. So yeah, that's great. Jim, if you can just move to the next two slides please. I have a picture of the camps itself. So a lot of you are probably familiar about the Rohingya refugee response. If not, it's in Bangladesh in the southern part of Asia between India and Myanmar. And then the response itself is with 850,000 Rohingya refugees. So it's one of the largest refugee camp settlements in the world. So the refugees are residing in 34 highly congested camps into sub districts in the southern coast of Bangladesh itself. Borders Myanmar and then the international border is the North River through which the Rohingya community fleeing violence from Rakhine State in Myanmar, flee over the river and then started settling in the two sub districts of Cox's Bazar. So just an overview of the land itself. It's located on 6,200 acres or 2,500 hectares of land. One of the big problem we have here is that majority or 70% of the camp is actually on forest land. And also it's near a wildlife sanctuary and a national park. And one of the other big problem is that it's also in the corridor of a endangered elephant that goes from Bangladesh to Myanmar, a migratory route as well. So that's also another problem. And the remaining camp land is located on Cox's which is state land but also private land. So a lot of the camp is majorities on forest land and the remaining is very much intertwined with host communities are living among the refugee shelters itself as well. So there is a lot of issues around use and control of land itself over there. And that's just some pictures of the Rohingya refugees fleeing. The first picture is in Myanmar, it's a Rakhine state and the second one is them crossing over the North River coming into Bangladesh. Next gym. So the next one is just a quick timeline. So there has been series of influx of the Rohingya refugees. I mean, they started from 1978 and then there was a second and third influx. So at the beginning, when they arrived in Bangladesh, they settled in two sites called Cthulhuplong and Napara. So these were the officially registered camps so they had a legal status at that time. And then we had the other influx and the largest influx was in August 2017. And then they started settling near the two registered camps because they knew them, they were families. So those two camps started expanding and expanding. And then the one in Cthulhuplong merged to form what is we call the mega camp. And then the other one further down, they started occupying a lot more forest land and also negotiating with the host communities. And then it also started expanding. So it's sort of separated into two sub districts in Ukiha and Technof. So there's a bit of a distance between each other. But what happened following that is that there was a lot of protest by the forestry department and other government. They were very concerned about the degradation and destruction of forest land, about land encroachment because at that time it wasn't officially declared. So then the prime minister's office retroactively declared approved 8000 acres of land as officially for refugee settlement. And they said that was also the administrative boundary. And then they said, you know, we're not allowed to have any, any more occupation beyond that land. So there is that restriction for us as well, whatever we do, we have to, it has to be within that administrative boundary. And the problem we have over here is that this declaration was not officially gazetted, which means that it's a bit of a legal area. The first department is still legal custodians, but it's the triple RC, the government committee who actually has jurisdiction over this. So there's ongoing conflict between the two. So at the moment the forestry department has turned a blind eye to it, but there's just ongoing, you know, disputes over that. So that's just within the camp itself. So in 2020, and then following that onwards, you know, then the camps started being settled. You know, we had, you know, shelters, infrastructures, facilities, distribution centres, you know, child friendly centres, all sorts of things were established. And then 2020 we finally established the housing land and property technical forum, which is a technical platform between shelter protection and also site management and site development, which is CCCM. And then this was established officially at the beginning of this year. And following that in April 2020, we decided and then the HLP due diligence guideline, which I'm presenting on today, which was very much focused on the COVID-19 health programming. It was drafted and endorsed. And then we started to try and operationalise it as well. So why was there a need for this obviously because of COVID? We're very worried because it's the largest refugee camp. We were worried about what would be the mortality rate, you know, social distancing issue. So we thought it could be 2500 to 4500 mortality rate. And then there was also planned construction for treatment, isolation, quarantine, sedges. You know, we were, you know, there were plans for 850, 900 beds. At that time, we in the HLP technical forum are very concerned about, you know, how is this going to go ahead? I mean, how are they going to look for land and are they going to be negotiating properly bearing in mind that this is like a three, just a three year operation. So we thought that we would really want to support the humanitarian community on how they're going to negotiate to rent the land and properties and then around construction as well because this is a new thing for us here. So we also want to make like a procedure or checklist. So, and then at the moment, you know, do no harm principle. So, so far we have 12 treatment and isolation centre and we have many more quarantine centres, both inside and outside the camp. And luckily for us, the infection rate has been quite, you know, not as scary as we thought, you know, the confirmed cases about 250 and the deaths is about 800. Obviously, you know, there are unreported and stuff, but it's not as bad as we thought. So, you know, give us some more space for us to work on this next gym. So I'm not going to go through this. I mean, all of you will know the objective of this is obviously to make sure, you know, all the humanitarian agencies are working in this response to do no harm obviously. The three one is basically some level of legal certainty, but also looking at secure enough, like Christian Megan talked about. And then the problem we have is that there is a lot of tension between the host community and the refugees, you know, on the control and use of the land, not just land but water resources as well. So we just want to make sure, like, further on as we start making more facilities and infrastructures that we don't exacerbate the already existing disputes and tensions, but also environmental destruction, because a biggest issue for us is the largest camp and constantly, you know, we are, you know, for anything from our, you know, bamboo and all the materials we're using all the construction that we're doing. It doesn't cost a more environmental destruction and degradation. That's why you'll see in one part of this is that we really looked at environmental clearance, making sure that we follow the national legal framework around that. And the third obviously, you know, not just the refugees but the host communities are not harmed because we now have to increasingly negotiate for land outside the camp areas. So, you know, making sure, and a lot of the host communities in this area are agricultural dependent. So we don't want to be constructing large warehouses and distribution centres on arable agricultural land. You know, it's about food security issues, but also that it doesn't lead to forced eviction, because they know they're going to get a lot more money from agencies who are willing to pay for them and then they lose the last source of livelihood as well. Jim next. So with the due diligence, we, we, we also referred a lot guidance note that Christie talked about before, and then we adapted it. So we decided on nine minimum steps. And this drafting process, we went through the forum itself, the HLP forum, potential shelter and the site management. So there was a lot of iterations as well. So we came up with nine minimum steps. But because there was such an urgency for the establishment, we had to say, okay, if you can finish all the nine steps, you can do one to the fourth steps and then you can do the rest later on because that just requires a bit more. And sometimes the other, the other steps, four steps might not be necessary, depending on the type of, you know, construction work or what you're using the land for. So obviously the first I'll just quickly go through this. Just the first step is just because we're starting from scratch. So we had to make sure that the agencies. And this one was mainly targeted towards the health sector, because they were the one who was leading in the establishment of isolation quarantine treatment and. I think this is also later on a bit of a challenge as well because for us in HLP particularly protection shelter and CCC I'm a lot more familiar, but with the health sector it can be a different language so it's a bit difficult. So the first step obviously is to actually have a clarity and why they require the land or property like the purpose. It could be that they just, they need just need to read just the land only because maybe they needed to park ambulances or they needed to, you know, how to stock their medical supplies and that's it. I think that they need that they need a land and to construct new construction sites, or they could just have a property that they're just going to rent, you know, and retrofit so just just have an understanding of what and what is the size that they require. In terms of quality, do they need to make sure that the soil this proper drainage facility, you know, is there like a water, you know, water table proper aquifer system in there that they need. The location accessibility particularly for the health agencies accessible road so the ambulances can fit in. Is there like 3G 4G mobile network services in case you know health emergency in each ring other people so those sort of things we put them in, and also clarity on the duration. Is this a temporary thing that we set up during COVID or is it that we're going to establish a proper treatment facility that you hand it over to the, to the health department that they can use later on so is it for one or two years. So, depending on that also, you know, how would you negotiate for the type of arrangement you would have over that step to then after we have a clarity in house step to then initial assessment of the land. Obviously, you know, that would involve doing a transit walk around checking the boundaries of the boundary markers you know it could be that they have walls it could be that it's just, you know, trees or you know post a wiring. Obviously, we want to check GPS coordinates, and this is useful for later on when we check the suitability of land and land use as well is the current land empty. People living there who, you know, crops are there and they've just harvested it so you know that's also important. Are you actually using land that they're using for agricultural purposes and that's something we have to be very careful about to because in the national development policy, they've actively said they don't want agricultural land to be used as settlement because of food security issues, you know, and those sort of issues as well live issues. And then at this point, they check whether the land meets the requirement in step one, and then also talk to the neighbors at that point just to check the land owner are they actually confirming that that they are the land land owners. Is the whatever we're going to construct is it going to impede the access to other resources if you're going to construct something over there, you know, do they need a pathway. So then step three is about suitability of land, obviously based on the GPS coordinates, then we would map the land parcel. We also do hazard mapping Bangladesh is very, you know, it's natural. It's very known for natural disasters, like high flood landslide, high tide zones, you know, cyclones every during the season. So it's also important to make sure the land that we identifying are not actively in this area to avoid those areas. And the other one is obviously topographical consideration, just making sure that the slope is less than 10 percentage. Mainly because this is going to take a lot of investment to grade the land or compacting it. It needs a lot of investment to make it habitable again. And then for the step three also for each of this we actually included a list of contact leaders or who they would who they can contact from the government and also from within the response the site management site development sectors. And then the particular site management teams in either IOM or unit CR IOM because the camps are divided into area of responsibility between IOM and unit CR. We also have contact points who work around this who can support agencies with the, you know, GIS and other mapping purposes as well. So step four is this is the part that's that we will still very insurance collection and verification of tenure and land documentation for this. I'll go into detail here. I'm just mindful of the time so I wonder if you could just move to some of maybe the key challenges that you would like us to really think about. Is that this slide or would you like me to move to another slide? Yeah, so I'll just quickly go through this. And then just quickly with this one it was more like we didn't want them just for documentation so we also took verification or testimonies from the lowest level of the government, the union parishard so that even if they don't have to turn your documentation, the union parishard will be able to say yes we know the chain of ownership from the father sorry it's always father grandfather here it's quite a gender specific so you know they could trace the ownership. The problem we have is that a lot of the land is actually occupied forest land or occupied other you know so it's quite difficult to understand that as well. So that was a bit of a challenge for this and also trying to contact the land owner properly because they might be absent as well. Jim next. Next. So then we also have the other steps which we didn't take because it wasn't that necessary at that time so we didn't go. So I'll just quickly go through it what was it was like one of the thing was we need to get a no objects and certificate from the forestry department. Because they wanted to make sure whatever land we use, it's not a protected area or a foresty area. We also had environmental clearance depending on the type of construction work is it going to have like emission or is it going to use a lot of water or medical waste that they would have to go through this so we provided the documentation for that but most of the time it wouldn't involve that much. And then also about land use development planning if it if it involved demolition or construction of large building you would have to meet the criteria for urban development or land use development criteria. And the other one was about agreement making sure that you know the agreements had basic provisions but also that a lot of them don't understand so we also do digital recording because they might not have formal education. So the challenges that we I wanted to share about is basically Bangladesh is very it's a refugee setting so obviously we're very limited with what we can do within the legal framework. It's a very newly developed independence 1971. So there is an undeveloped land administration and land management. Obviously, you know land records are not digitized. And then the camp plan is not gazetted so there's that great area. So there's always this ongoing conflict whether this is actually forest land or cast land or you know is it actually really private land so and there's also conflict of interest over what to use and what not to use. So the camps inside the air land inside the camp, you can get permission from the triple RC or the campaign charge for the outside you have to go through many layers of the government itself. So there's also difficulty in locating land owners itself as well. But one of the challenges we had was that this one was mainly around the health response. So it was very difficult for certain different sectors to to operationalize it because, you know, we had to really work around understanding which is still a challenge for me because I don't think we've done a good job around that. Also the issue around urgency and the procedural requirement, you know, there was a need to have all these treatment centers established and then just it wasn't that we wanted to put all of these barriers but it was just to make them understand that there's certain things that need to happen as well. But also identifying the persons in charge in the agencies. It was not so much like the protection shelter CCM. It was more like the procurement and logistics department who were dealing with this. So it was also very difficult to then really try and sit with them to go through this process itself. So one of the thing would be to really involve it from the very beginning, particularly CCM site management because it's land within the camp itself, even though it's congested. But then how do we take it forward because we are the ones who are most vested in the HRP due diligence work itself. So thanks Jim. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Thank you to pick it up. That was fascinating and I think really we get a feel of the complexity and the multiple degrees of ownership and land use and all those conflicting things and a really interesting point you make there at the end. OK, it's one thing to think about the different sectors and clusters that might need to work together. But then we've also got others that are working in procurement in other areas and thinking about how this integrates with health as well. I think these are really relevant and big questions. So thank you so much for that. Really appreciate that. Just before we move to the next speaker, a number of you have noticed are asking about the presentations and wanted to see the slides. So I will tell you that whilst the session is being recorded, there will also be a report and I will check with the speakers about sharing content of their slides with you as well. So we will look to do that if that's at all possible and just want to emphasise again, please do if you have examples responses to some of these questions that are coming up from our presenters. Please do go on the jam boards, post your experiences, your ideas because we really want to hear from you. So please do. OK, so we're going to move now on. So I really appreciate all the input there from our presenters. And again, that issue of, you know, when is it right to actually think about do no harm and potentially not acting. It comes up again and again. How do we navigate the complexity between different types of land ownership and how we see some challenges in terms of how maybe land ownership hasn't been registered and how that happens. And yeah, I think very real challenges there. So thank you. So without further ado, I'm pleased to move to our more discussion section. So again, please use the chat, use the jam boards to share your thoughts. I think each of our presenters have raised questions there that they would like assistance with. So around the things that we maybe have got experience of ourselves or maybe that we've heard of examples. And we're going to turn to our panel who I've agreed to be discussant. So I'm going to ask each of them to respond to what they've heard. It might be that there's a particular question that came up that they feel that they've got an answer to. It might be that they want to speak to that need for coordination across the different sectors. It might be something else that's sort of come to mind. So I'll do a round with each of our discussants. So we have LSE Daroglu, the Global Shelter Cluster Co-lead. We have one, Soffin O'Pannach, who's the Global CCCM Coordinator. Ibero Lopes, the HRP advisor for the Global Shelter Cluster and Christy Farmer, the HRP consultant who we heard from at the beginning. So I'm going to just sort of go through each of those. And if you'd like to respond, then we'll open up some questions that we've had coming already that we'll then put to yourselves and to the presenters and see where we go. So Ella, would you like to begin? Yes, sure. Shall I turn on the video or maybe is that too much for our people's bandwidth? Well, I'll turn off my video and then if you can turn on your video. OK, let's see how that works. Well, thank you very much for allowing the shelter cluster.