5) Description of housing product/service offering: In the aftermath of a disaster housing is not only a physical need for shelter, it is also a psychological need – the need for security and safety, ensuring the safety of women and children and a metaphor for the return to ‘normalcy’. Therefore the primary focus of our intervention was to ensure that affected people can speedily acquire a roof over their heads after a disaster, such as an earthquake, occurs. The intervention evolved a 3-phase approach to shelter building which offered protection, safety and security after a disaster, in a manner that gives dignity and decision making power to the families and communities involved and who often have no say in the way they are 'rehabilitated'. The intervention created space for affected people to design structures according to their practical requirements and social needs, with our organisation providing a facilitating role by providing materials, incorporating local skills and teaching new ones, and offering advice on the appropriate use of compensation amounts offered by the State. All beneficiaries were poor and socially marginalised communities affected by the earthquake in western India in 2001.

6) Description of innovation: In the past, housing programmes after earthquakes in India took these forms: 1. Pre-designed units, invariably decided upon by the donor organizations and its ‘experts’ and the same unit is distributed to all; the new unit is installed in the original site or nearby 2. Groups are moved from their original location where houses are built for them leading to disruption of social networks and support systems and away from livelihood sources. 3. New design, developed and built in situ but by outside teams – donors, ‘experts’, volunteers and hired help. By the time these processes – identification of genuine beneficiaries, identification of new site, design, material procurement and actual building- are completed many of the affected populations have spent almost two years in the open or in makeshift shelters and, as in the case after the Latur earthquake in Maharashtra, the final houses were not occupied because, though technically sound, the outside experts had failed to cater to local needs. Our initiative focused on rebuilding shelters in phased but quick way. Phase I involved temporary shelters, built with pre-fabricated materials on wasteland on short lease from government. Phase II consisted of one room, semi- permanent shelters on site of original house, built by the family to its own requirements with a limited amount of materials distributed by us and rubble of old house, all of which could be re-used. Phase III was the building of the permanent house with compensation money given by the State, recycling materials of the semi-permanent structure or building around or alongside it.

7) Benefits to clients: In Phase I, the temporary structures were designed by outside experts with some materials sourced locally and some from outside the disaster affected area. Village level committees, with representation from among marginalized communities, minorities and women, were formed to identify genuine beneficiaries and the neediest within them, with priority for widows and women-headed households. This was accompanied by advocacy with government for quick and fair damage assessment and opening bank accounts for families to eventually receive compensation amounts. The package of materials needed for the Phase II semi- permanent shelter was jointly decided with the village level committee and donor organisation so that an adequate shelter could be created to safely house men, women, children, household belongings and domestic animals. Labour for construction in Phase II was contributed by the family and food support was extended during this phase. Alongside these processes, advocacy was done with government for timely release of compensation amount to facilitate construction of the final home. In Phase III, food support was extended while families constructed their homes.

In all three phases children’s activity centres were organized to keep children and adolescents engaged while adults cleared debris, completed the necessary paperwork related to claims and bank accounts and did the actual construction.

8) Key operational partnerships: Phase I: The key partnership in this phase was with the Council of Architecture, the apex architectural body created by an Act of the Indian Parliament who gave us technical support and procured materials, international donors who gave financial support, local community leaders who played a key decision making role in deciding beneficiaries and keeping the processes fair and equitable. The government was also a key partner for providing land at this time.

In Phase II the key partnerships were with the donors for financial and technical support, with the government for compensation assessment and release, the banking system for facilitating the paperwork to enable the speedy opening of thousands of new accounts. In Phase III, an important partnership was with suppliers of building materials for speedy supply of large quantities of materials at reasonable rates.

9) Financial model: In this case, more than a question of ‘affording’ the emphasis was on creating housing which was in harmony with the situation of the local people, responsive to their needs – both practical and cultural. Such harmony was also concerned that the intervention did not reduce the beneficiaries to ‘receivers of charity’ or ‘victims’ or shower them with excessive facilities beyond their ken. Often, such inputs find their way into the second-hand market because recepients just sell such 'aid' items. A reasonable family contribution in the form labour to clear debris or construction was part of the reconstruction intervention so that families could participate and contribute at all times to their home and did not just come and occupy a readymade house.

          • Costs as percentage of income: 0

          • Financing: The costs involved were: Immediate shelter: Rs 6000 per unit Temporary shelter materials: Package of bamboo, bricks, cement, roof tiles, door worth Rs 7000 Food support: Cereals, pulses, tea, sugar worth Rs 3000 Government compensation contribution: ranged between Rs 45,000 - 90,000 depending on damage of original home. Labour contribution by family: estimated worth Rs 15,000

10) Effectiveness

          • Project outcomes: About 6500 homes were built through the 3-Phase process described. The process was completed over a two year period from February 2001 to March 2003. We were the first to complete a housing programme of this scale in our area and other initiatives continued till the end of 2005.

          • Number of clients in past year: The programme was concluded three years ago but the experience was applied after the Asian tsunami in 2004

          • Percentage of clients that are poor or marginalized: 100

          • Potential demand: This approach could be used in all disaster affected areas where speedy restoration of normalcy is critical.

11) Scaling up strategy

          • Stage of the initiative: Mature stage.

          • Expansion plan: We have developed an approach to post-disaster mass housing which we hope will be useful in diverse contexts

12) Origin of the initiative: The initiative was the result of an event: an earthquake of the intensity of 7.8 on the Richter scale in western India in 2001

Contact Information:
Suchitra  Sheth
Ashoka Fellow
Programme Coordinator
Setu: Centre for Social Knowledge and Action
(NGO)
1 Punyashlok, Near Liberty Bus stop, University Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009
India
Tel: 0091-79-26560751
Email: setumail@gmail.com