1 - People in Centre

Transcription

��
�
Intermediate
Semi-Permanent Shelters
in Post-Disaster Reconstruction
(need for a change in the mindset)
Intermediate Semi-Permanent Shelters in Post-Disaster Reconstruction
1
Publication Details
Authors
Vivek Rawal
Rajendra Desai
Rupal Desai
Publisher
UNNATI
Organisation for Development Education
G-1/200 Azad Society, Ahmedabad 380 015, Gujarat.
Phone: 079-26746145, 26733296. Fax: 079-26743752
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.unnati.org
Design
Ramesh Patel, UNNATI
Printing
Bansidhar Offset, Ahmedabad
Year of Publication
2008
Copies
500
The Publication should be referred as:
UNNATI (2008); Intermediate Semi-Permanent Shelters in Post Disaster
Reconstruction, Ahmedabad, India.
2
From the Authors
Experiences are not easy to share. Sharing the learning is still more
difficult. Working with the communities in the past few years after various
disasters has added many layers of experiences, thoughts and learning.
Writing this booklet provided us an opportunity to revisit our experiences.
Intermediate shelters have been an area in which we have been working
since the Latur earthquake.
In post disaster shelter reconstruction, intermediate semi-permanent
shelters are critical for successful rehabilitation of the affected
communities. The intermediate semi-permanent shelters are not merely
a product but a process that shows way for reconstruction of permanent
houses. If the process is well facilitated, collective community energies
can ensure successful housing process, otherwise it may lead to
communities dependent and unsatisfied. Given the resources and efforts
that are rightly put into reconstruction of habitat of the affected
communities, it is critical that intermediate semi-permanent shelters are
satisfactorily addressed. Various methodologies adopted by the state
and civil society stakeholders have been used to address intermediate
semi permanent shelter needs of the affected communities. We
ourselves have been involved in many post disaster response strategies
and different approaches evolved with time and experience. The learning
that has been reinforced over a period of time shows that the intermediate
semi - permanent shelter reconstruction process is not so much about
delivery as about facilitation. Local community capacities when trusted
and strengthened lead to much more satisfactory shelter reconstruction
from the point of view of the house owners. In this booklet our experiences
of post- disaster reconstruction experiences have been articulated.
Words are like bridges that help us cross over. Later if they crumble to
3
dust, it does not matter. We hope this booklet helps us traverse some
distance on the way to learn what can make successful rehabilitation
and reconstruction (R&R) after a disaster. Comments and feedback are
welcome. We are thankful to UNNATI for giving us the opportunity to
share our experiences, insights and learning. This document deliberately
avoids a prescriptive guideline for intermediate-semi permanent shelter
programme in post disaster situation. The local context and peoples
process are the determining factors.
About the Authors
Vivek Rawal, trained as an architect, has been working in the area
of post disaster reconstruction for more than 12 years. The main
focus of his work has been participatory approaches of
reconstruction. Besides this, he has been also involved in monitoring
and evaluation of humanitarian responses by various NGOs, INGOs
and bilateral agencies. (Contact: [email protected])
Rajendra Desai, a structural engineer, and Rupal Desai, an architect,
are founding co-directors of National Centre for Peoples Action for
Disaster Preparedness (NCPDP), Ahmedabad. Both of them have
more than 20 years of experience on developing appropriate
technologies and strengthening artisans skills. They have particular
expertise on pre and post damage seismic retrofitting of traditional
buildings and technical training. (Contact: [email protected])
4
Contents
From the Authors
3
Intermediate Semi-Permanent Shelters
Need for Mindset Change in Effective
Post-Disaster Reconstruction
7
Context
9
Intermediate Semi-Permanent Shelters:
Needs and Issues
12
Types of Intermediate Semi-Permanent Shelters
16
Enabling Conditions and Factors
20
Facilitating Intermediate Semi-Permanent Shelters
23
Intermediate Semi-permanent Shelters in Kashmir
A Case Study
27
Lessons Learnt
35
References
38
5
6
Intermediate Semi-Permanent Shelters
Need for Mindset Change in Effective
Post-Disaster Reconstruction
Post disaster shelter response is mostly done in three stages: 1) immediate
emergency shelters or relief camps, 2) intermediate semi-permanent
shelters and 3) permanent shelters. However, it has been widely noticed
that stages 1 and 2 are invariably mixed together. This makes the
intervention inappropriate and compromises the quality and timeframe
of the intermediate shelters. By mixing the first two stages, most of the
disaster shelter responses do not provide safe and secure living
conditions. By the time permanent shelters come up, which usually takes
more than one to two years, the interim shelters get damaged, leading
to poor living conditions. The erection of intermediate shelters is
determined more by the delivery capacity of agencies rather than
community decisions. The timeframe of delivery, choice of material and
location of the intermediate shelter are decided by the delivery agency.
The living conditions in temporary shelters are poor, not because of the
design but due to the perspective of humanitarian agencies. Most of the
time, insensitive and inappropriate distribution of support takes control
away from the community making them dependent on external aid. This
document points to the need of change in mindset of the humanitarian
agencies for ensuring effective and satisfactory intermediate shelters.
The document enlists the need to engage and enable communities to
take up their own intermediate semi-permanent shelters and building
community capacities for their own recovery and development.
Tents and prefabricated structures have not performed as well as the
self initiatives of the communities with external support in material
salvaging, rubble clearance and supplement material. The learning of
past experiences indicate that when the community identifies and
analyses issues and gaps and is enabled to come up with an approach, a
far more people empowered reconstruction process is initiated. After
the Kashmir earthquake (2005), for the first time, a comprehensive
7
intermediate shelter policy was framed on the principles of owner driven
reconstruction by providing cash assistance and facilitative mechanisms
for accessing material. The key lessons are as follows:
i)
The support for intermediate shelters needs to be timely - within
three months.
ii)
Intermediate shelters need to be built with local materials and skills.
iii)
Local community needs to be seen as resourceful and capable to
take their own decision.
iv)
Appropriate policy framework based on community initiatives is
necessary.
8
Context
Natural disasters continue to be devastating and recurring phenomena.
The frequency and impact of natural disasters has increased over the
years. The loss of human life in natural disasters declined in 80s and 90s
800,000 people died in the 1990s compared with 2 million in the 1970s;
the total number of people affected has tripled to 2 billion.1 The disaster
impact is more severe in developing countries than the developed ones.
For example, Peru and Japan are both susceptible to earthquakes.
However, in Peru each year nearly 2900 lives are lost while only 63 are
lost in Japan. Venezuela and France faced heavy rainfall in 1999; the
death toll in Venezuela was more than 50,000, as compared to 123 in
France. These differences occur across the world and usually developing
countries are worst affected causing set back to years of development
work. During 1985 to 1999, the developing countries faced losses as high
as 13.4% of their GDP; while in developed countries the losses were
restricted to only 2.5% of their GDP.2 The number of people affected
increased by factor 2.03 in Low Human Development countries and 1.31
in Medium Human Development countries. In contrast to these increases,
the number was halved in High Human Development countries.3 Even
within the affected communities, the poorest are the worst hit. The Indian
subcontinent is highly vulnerable to natural disasters such as droughts,
floods, cyclones, earthquakes, landslides, tsunami, etc. Among 35 states/
UTs of India, more than 25 are vulnerable to such disasters. 56% of the
total land area is vulnerable to seismic activity. The average annual loss
1
World disaster Report 2002, IFRC
Perspectives Todays Ideas for tomorrows World, Munich Re, 2005
3
World Disaster Report 2005, IFRC
2
9
of human life is nearly 3600 and 2.36 million houses are damaged on
average.4
Over the years, there has been increasing recognition of multiple
dimensions of impact of disasters. Next to loss of life, disruption of housing
due to disasters is one of the most critical concerns. The disaster relief
and rehabilitation usually follows the steps - rescue, immediate relief,
intermediate support for coping, long term rehabilitation and
development. Reconstruction of peoples habitat is a complex process. It
has three stages that culminate in permanent housing. Typically, the stages
include - immediate emergency shelters, intermediate semi-permanent
shelters and permanent housing.
Intermediate semi-permanent shelters refer to houses for the disaster
affected community for use for an intermediate period till permanent
houses are reconstructed. In India, various approaches on intermediate
shelter have been adopted in post disaster rehabilitation programmes.
The analysis of these programmes has usually shown gaps in terms of
timeliness of delivery, quality standards, protection of vulnerable sections
of the community, etc. These gaps arise primarily from the perspective
and approach adopted by most of the humanitarian agencies. The
observations and analysis of past experiences provide key lessons for
the future. To achieve satisfactory outcome, understanding of the needs
of the affected communities is crucial. It includes understanding of
appropriate needs of shelter for the affected community; expected and
actual time-scale of fulfilling these intermediate shelter needs; resources
required and actually available and the extent of participation and control
of local communities. Clear understanding of these issues can lead to an
effective approach by humanitarian programmes.
4
S. K. Swami, Director (NDM), Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of
Agriculture, GOI in his presentation during International seminar on Disaster Response
Management on June 14-15, 2001
10
This document extensively dwells on the recent experience of intermediate
semi-permanent shelter reconstruction in Kashmir. Review of past
disasters and subsequent humanitarian responses related to the post
disaster interventions in India; like earthquakes in Marathwada (1993),
Uttarakhand (1999), Gujarat (2001), Kashmir (2005); tsunami in South
India (2004) and floods in Gujarat (2005) & Rajasthan (2006) form the
basis in writing this document. The document derives key observations
of the authors own experiences of working directly in these disasters, as
well as participating in the evaluation of disaster responses by local
initiatives, bilateral and multilateral programmes. It advocates the
importance and the needs of the intermediate semi-permanent shelter,
what types of shelters are needed and how these can be facilitated. The
document is aimed at aid agencies, humanitarian agencies, professionals
responsible for post disaster responses and other concerned stakeholders.
It does not provide any how-to-do guidelines for intermediate semipermanent shelters after any disaster as these have to be specific to
local context. A study commissioned by United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) also concluded that such
guidelines are not possible and have to be evolved looking into the local
context. Such an approach requires a change in present mindset of
humanitarian agencies.
The first section of the document looks into needs and rationale of
intermediate semi-permanent shelters. The second section discusses
types of intermediate shelters. The third section is about the approaches
for facilitating intermediate semi-permanent shelters. In particular this
section discusses issues related to targeting the most vulnerable in the
affected communities. Finally, the fourth section consolidates key lessons
learnt.
11
Intermediate Semi-Permanent Shelters:
Needs and Issues
Intermingling of various factors such as human activities, social structure,
culture and political economy with climate, topography, geology, hydrology
and natural resources over a period of time shape the human settlements.
The disaster not only destroys peoples houses and habitat but also has
impacts on these factors. Human settlement processes 5 are also
disrupted by natural disasters. As this disruption severely impacts human
life, efforts must be made to restore human habitats as quickly as possible.
However, immediately after a disaster, protection of human life from
elements like sun, wind, rain or snow may take precedence and habitat
may be seen as mere shelter. This is a simplistic view. The housing
reconstruction process is more complex than it seems. Typically, a
permanent housing reconstruction framework needs to integrate the
factors relating to the house, environment, and livelihood. The factors
relating to the house include domestic, social and functional needs. The
house has symbolic importance for the owner and his/her family, as this
home is used as a functional space. Environment related factors, such as
setting and site of the shelter, landscape, climate, access to infrastructure
and services, settlement structure (urban/rural), etc. are also equally
important. Livelihood factors include the mode of productive work for
the family, their products and incomes, access to employment, land,
markets, etc. These factors need to be considered in overall socioeconomic and political context which refers to aspects like socio-cultural
set-up, gender and caste equity, ownership, access and delivery
mechanisms for land and housing, governance mechanisms, etc. Hence,
5
12
Human settlement processes include processes of accessing land, material, skills and
knowledge for their houses and basic infrastructural services. These processes also
include the supply mechanisms for these resources.
it is not too difficult to perceive the complexities involved in reconstruction
of peoples housing.
After emergency rescue and relief, to empower people to participate in
such a process, it is essential to facilitate intermediate semi-permanent
shelters. This is the most crucial phase of rehabilitation. If the shelter
needs of the affected community are properly taken care of at this stage,
the process of reconstruction of permanent houses can be done with
integration of above-mentioned factors. Poor intermediate shelters cause
undue pressure to build permanent shelters in unreasonably short time
duration. This results in substandard quality and poor community
participation. Satisfactory intermediate shelter process ensures security
of vulnerable community after the disaster and brings back confidence to
recover from the shock. However, the difference between emergency
shelters and intermediate shelters is not well understood and, therefore,
terms like temporary shelters are used to convey both the ideas of
emergency as well as short-term use.
It is critical to understand the difference between (a) emergency shelter
immediately after the disaster, and (b) intermediate semi-permanent
shelters within first three months. It is necessary to separate the two
stages since the situations and the needs of the affected people are
vastly different.
In the immediate aftermath, emergency shelters are put up mostly by
people on their own or sometimes with minimum outside help. It has
been observed that within hours of a disaster the survival instinct of the
people takes over. The immediate need of the people is to protect
themselves from the elements, especially the sun and the rain. Driven by
this need, people improvise and create what can be called emergency
shelters for themselves. People themselves with support from community
neighborhoods have usually responded first after a disaster. People use
their creativity to build some sort of shelters that would help them pull
through for the next few weeks. As a result they tend to come up from
whatever material that they can lay their hands on, tarpaulin, plastic
13
sheets, bed-sheets, blankets, wood poles, and even cots being a few of
them.
After fulfilling the basic minimum shelter requirement, the community
quickly starts working towards a better shelter that can last them for the
period till permanent houses are provided to them. Intermediate semipermanent shelters are shelters that not only protect from the vagaries
of nature but provide safe and protected space for the affected community
to rebuild their lives until the long-term sustainable solutions can be put
in place. These intermediate semi-permanent shelters are used by the
affected community as long as they are not shifted to the permanent
houses. The past experiences have shown that people are living in such
shelters for as long as 2 to 5 years depending on the rehabilitation policy
and package of the government and other implementing agency.
Experiences show that external aid
takes time to reach to the affected
people. Moreover, the external aid
reaching the affected populations
does not adequately address the
need for emergency shelters. A week
after the disaster the community
requirement changes to intermediate
semi-permanent shelters. NGOs and
the Governments usually respond
with blankets, plastic sheets,
tarpaulins and tents. Sometimes the
affected people are evacuated to
safe public buildings and also to
camps. However, by the time external
emergency shelter support arrives,
people put up some sort of emergency
shelter on their own. As a result,
emergency shelters of humanitarian
agencies become temporary
14
Agency built emergency shelters near Bhachau town
in Kutch - Gujarat Earthquake, 2001
In-situ shelter being erected by a family from material
retrieved from rubble - Gujarat Earthquake, 2001
shelters that are supposed to last till permanent houses are constructed.
This leads to poor living conditions for the inhabitants. Affected families
are helpless but accept these inadequate and poor quality shelters as
temporary. External aid agencies promise good permanent houses and
urge people to accept poor quality temporary shelter which are actually
emergency shelters.
In Latur, Maharashtra, after the earthquake in 1993, there were heavy
rains for 48 hours. People desperately needed cover against rain. Also,
there were many aftershocks. Without assessing the stability of the
structures, it was not advisable to go back in to the houses that were still
standing. Wherever possible, the people took shelter in public buildings,
such as schools or other government buildings. In the mean time most of
the people quickly made their own shelters. Although the houses that got
destroyed or damaged were made of stone, timber and mud, these houses
had extensions or awnings that were made of corrugated galvanized iron
(CGI) sheets. These sheets were quickly retrieved by the people and simple
sheds were put up. After a few days, the Government responded by making
temporary shelters with CGI sheets. In Gujarat, after the earthquake in
2001, tents made of black polypropylene were erected at many new sites
away from the villages in about a week. However, people preferred not to
move in to those shelters but improvised something on their own in their
own homestead plots.
It is, therefore, essential to recognise the fact that immediate shelter
responses can be met fastest by the community themselves or institutions
prepared for such eventualities with sufficient stockpiles. Immediate
emergency shelters can not be quickly provided through external
humanitarian responses. Permanent housing process is complex and time
consuming, external humanitarian responses need to focus on the need
of intermediate semi-permanent shelters facilitated through community
process.
15
Types of Intermediate Semi-Permanent
Shelters
Immediately after a disaster, humanitarian response is typically restricted
to procuring and distributing tents. Tents were distributed instead of
tarpaulin for the first time in response to Gujarat Earthquake (2001). Tents
have been used, not only as emergency shelters but also as intermediate
shelters, particularly in the west6 . The logic used was, tents will provide
immediate protection. This logic needs to be carefully examined. Tents
provide minimal protection from the elements and there is feeling of
impermanence and physical vulnerability7 . The experiences suggest that
there is usually a huge gap between the available supply and demand.
The other typical option chosen by the humanitarian agencies is to provide
prefabricated shelters. These choices are based on the assumptions that,
(i) these shelters can be erected and provided rapidly, (ii) a common
design can suit all the affected families, and (iii) affected communities
are suffering trauma and do not have capacities or willingness to do
anything on their own. However, past experiences on use of prefabricated
6
For example, tents have been used in past in post-earthquake responses in Turkey
(1976, 1999), Guatemala (1976), Italy (1980, 2002), Mexico (1985), etc.
7
After the Turkey earthquake in 1976, the government policy was to provide winterised
tents to surviving families till permanent houses are built fearing deaths due to harsh
winters. Even the whole worlds stockpile of winterised tents could not have sufficed for
the need. Similarly, the case of Guatemala earthquake in the same year indicates that
interim shelter needs were met through tents, supply of corrugated sheets and improvised
shelters by the community. Occupancy rate was very low in tents particularly wherever
agencies had put these as camp sites away from their original homestead plots. (UNDRO
case studies, 1977)
16
shelters have shown low/poor acceptability8 and poor performance both
climatically and functionally9 . The relevance of prefabricated shelters
and the priority placed on such shelters is highly misplaced. These
prefabricated shelters can be made of a variety of industrial materials.
Most of the prefabricated structures are built using steel frames with
composite material panels such as plastics or cement based fiber
reinforced boards. These structures come in ready for assembly form.
But they are expensive, and difficult to maintain. In many cases in the
past, due to poor or lack of upkeep,
these structures degrade into steel
frames. Studies have shown that
such shelters do not really serve their
primary purpose of protecting people
from the elements but are used, at
best, for secondary purposes such as
storage while people live in adjacent
improvised shelters.
State of the prefabricated shelters within a few weeks
after being put up in Tamilnadu after tsunami in 2004
After a disaster, prefabricated
shelters are available in the market
at a cheaper rate to humanitarian
agencies in case of a bulk purchase.
It is likely that this may be one of the
important reasons for opting to such
solutions for intermediate shelters.
Despite of the discount, the delivery
costs of the prefabricated shelters
have been extremely high. Many a
8
After 2 months of earthquake in Bam, Iran (2003), prefabricated shelters were being put
up but only a small number of families moved into them. Most people preferred to stay
close to their gardens and yards to do agriculture works, the main source of their
income. (UNOCHA reports)
9
DEC evaluation report of November 2005 criticized the poor quality of temporary shelters
that could not provide safety from vagaries of nature and fulfill basic functional needs
of the families.
17
time, these shelters cost more than what community spends to build their
permanent residence with indigenous materials 10 . While such an
approach satisfies most of the donor criteria of standard unit distribution
and financial accounting systems, it doesnt serve social, cultural and
livelihood related requirements of the survivors. The second consideration
of most of the humanitarian agencies using imported prefabricated
interim shelters is its assumption on rapid delivery and erection. However,
the distributional aspects are rarely considered important. Distribution
has complex links with the socio-economic set up of the affected
community. Insensitive distribution of tents and prefabricated structures
raises expectations of the local community to such unreasonable levels
that no government or non-government agency can satisfy. Insufficient
numbers, delayed deliveries and exorbitant costs have always adversely
affected the outcome of such interim shelter programmes. Humanitarian
agencies many a time get too carried away in branding such shelter types
as their model. The worst is that such shelters fail completely to serve
the needs of affected families and soon result in extremely poor living
conditions11 .
Another important type of intermediate semi-permanent shelter is more
traditional and built from local materials, many a time from the materials
salvaged from the rubble. Such types of intermediate shelters are usually
built by the affected families. Very few humanitarian agencies have
10
11
18
After the devastating tsunami in 2004, Government of India spent approx. $15 million
on 10000 interim shelters in Andaman Nicobar Islands for the affected families.
Traditionally, the communities have been building their houses in merely half the cost
of these shelters.
After tsunami (2004), Government of Tamilnadu and collaborating NGOs responded
by building shelters with corrugated asphalt sheets and wooden poles. The choice of
materials, technology and design resulted in very poor living conditions and most of
the shelters were not liveable within a few months. The shelters could not withstand the
monsoons and the sheets ripped off and started rotting quickly even before the
construction of permanent housing could take off. International criticism such as DEC
evaluation reports made NGOs reinvest on these shelters but the conditions improved
only marginally.
supported construction of such type of shelters in the past. Some agencies
have used salvaged materials partly and supplied additional materials to
build houses that follow traditional building systems. Past experiences
suggest that such type of shelters contribute significantly to much higher
level of satisfaction in the affected community as they fulfill their social,
cultural, climatic and functional needs more effectively. It is not only the
type of intermediate semi-permanent shelters that is critical for higher
satisfaction levels but also other factors, conditions and processes involved
in delivery of shelters.
19
Enabling Conditions and Factors
Civil society and community initiatives for reconstruction, use of resources,
technical guidelines, roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders
and actors, etc. get guided by the policy adopted by the government. The
approach varies depending upon who is driving the process. Mainly there
are three driving forces: State, humanitarian agency and community/
owner. Outcome in terms of satisfactory intermediate shelters has been
varied. In Latur earthquake (1991), the policy was the government to
provide built tin-sheet shelters. In Gujarat earthquake (2001), CGI sheets
were distributed to each affected family. In Tamil nadu after tsunami
(2004), NGOs built corrugated asphalt sheet shelters as per the
government design as part of public private partnership. In Kashmir
earthquake (2005), policy facilitated community built intermediate shelters
through material supply, cash assistance, technical guidance and
grievance redressal mechanism. According to Sushma Iyengar (Kutch Nav
Nirman Abhiyan)12 , the policy for post disaster responses is determined
by socio-political history and context of governance in each state.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop contextual policies that facilitate
effective intermediate semi-permanent shelters and lead to empowering
conditions for the community for subsequent reconstruction.
Another critical factor for satisfactory outcome of reconstruction
programme is access to land with secured tenure. Forms of tenure are
12
Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan a network of local NGOs evolved as a coordinating body to
respond effectively in recurring disasters in Kutch, Gujarat. Over a period of time with
many successful experiences, Abhiyan has emerged as leading NGO network practicing,
supporting and advocating people-led reconstruction processes with development
perspective. Abhiyan successfully advocated and facilitated owner driven processes
in post earthquake reconstruction in Gujarat
20
complex in most of the developing countries. Most interventions are
insensitive to the fear among people, especially the poor. Relocation of
communities immediately after the disaster for safety and ease of delivery
fails to take into account, tenure security and the livelihood requirement
of the affected. Experiences in Gujarat earthquake, South Indian tsunami
or Kashmir earthquake are cases in support. In Gujarat, many affected
families were evacuated and moved to a camp site that was considered
safe, where all services could be provided to the people. Within a week,
people took away the tents and pitched it on their homestead plots. As
the poor achieve security of tenure through a complex socio-political
process, it is extremely critical for them to protect it. At the same time,
getting a shelter is a step towards legitimisation of their right over
permanent housing. In Kerala, Tamilnadu and Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
many families accepted shelters provided by the government or agency.
They kept these houses locked in their possession but never actually used
them. They continued to stay at their original residential locations in
thatched shelters built on their own.
Intermediate semi-permanent shelters are less a matter of model design
but more of planning and mobilising local capacities and resources. In
most of the developing countries, housing is predominantly a people led
process. People design and build their houses themselves. This is done
in an incremental basis, depending on the availability of resources within
the family. The intermediate shelters improvised by the surviving families
from the material salvaged from damaged structures, in addition to
materials distributed by external agencies and the government, has
worked well in the past. After the Marathwada Earthquake (1991), people
in the villages that were not totally destroyed but were partially damaged,
built the semi-permanent shelters on their own. Since the people were
afraid to sleep in the stone houses, however intact, they desperately
needed such shelters to sleep in. During the day time, the existing houses
were used in a normal way. However people believed that the houses
would be safer for sleeping if they had a light weight roof, and walls were
lighter than stone walls. People selected materials that they could afford.
Keeping this requirement in mind, people used wood, CGI sheets, stones,
21
mud and thatch. This was mostly retrieved and recycled to set up their
own house. After the Uttarakhand earthquake (1990) similar process was
observed throughout the affected region as external help was minimal.
External agencies and the Government had distributed Corrugated
Galvanized Iron (CGI) sheets in the affected villages. People used these
for erecting their immediate shelter and also for making storage boxes
a critical need to store their retrieved valuables from the debris. In the
Gujarat earthquake (2001), the government declared that it would
complete all the reconstruction in six
months. As a result, no importance
was given to the construction of the
semi-permanent shelters. Only ten CGI
sheets were distributed. In Gujarat,
communities managed their
intermediate shelters on their own.
Realising this need and gap, a few
NGOs, particularly Kutch Nav Nirman
Abhiyan, facilitated owner driven
reconstruction of intermediate semipermanent shelters.
Intermediate shelter facilitated by Kutch Nav Nirman
Abhiyan - Gujarat earthquake, 2001
22
Facilitating Intermediate
Semi-Permanent Shelters
Sushma Iyengar (Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan) says,
Timing is critical especially for facilitating and governing initiatives of
varied stakeholders, before they begin their own initiatives. In the lack of
timely policy interventions, mechanisms and resource inputs, disaster
management loses collective synergy.13
Timely intervention for facilitating reconstruction, after a disaster, is
essential. Intermediate semi - permanent shelters need to be supported
from the first week onwards till the first four months. Any further delay in
ensuring this support to the affected community leads to frustration and
dissatisfaction. People living in temporary makeshift shelters need their
privacy and security. They need to restart their own kitchen, education of
their children and even their livelihood, apart from getting access to social
security benefits and compensation. Protection against the elements and
against vectors and safety during recurrence of disaster also remain
equally important needs. Unfortunately, the past experiences show that
the process of intermediate semi - permanent shelters gets guided more
by the delivering capacity of the humanitarian agencies rather than the
real need and capacity of the people to reconstruct themselves. Local
communities affected by a disaster are seen as hapless and poor victims
rather than resourceful and capable survivors. In a hurry to help,
humanitarian agencies take it upon themselves to deliver what they
believe, will benefit the community. It is necessary to utilize community
capacity, skills and collective synergy to facilitate intermediate semipermanent shelters. Lack of familiarity with the local situation results in
the overlooking of all forms of local resources. It includes community
networks, material goods including salvaged, retrieved and stored
13
Presentation to Planning Commission, Government of India after South Asia Tsunami
in 2004
23
stockpiles, supplies of building products and tools in normal course of
events within local markets that may be operational, local skills and human
resources, community based organisations and local self-governing
institutions like panchayats, etc.
In Latur, after the Marathwada earthquake (1991), intermediate shelters
were built by the Government at new camp sites. They consisted of rows
of shelters having common walls. This was done in the villages that were
being rebuilt completely. The government temporary shelters construction
went beyond six months though the government announced that it would
finish the reconstruction of permanent houses in the same duration. These
shelters were small (approx. 150 sq.ft.) as they were not expected to be
used for more than four or five months. The shelters lacked flooring,
drainage and sanitation facilities. When it rained, it created unlivable
conditions inside and around the shelters causing much hardship to the
people. The temporary toilets were later built by an UN agency. People
had absolutely no say nor did they participate in the process. The fallout
of the government driven temporary shelter construction was that people
simply waited for the government to do everything. In the first summer,
when the usual strong twisting winds began to blow, roofs of many shelters
were blown away. People, instead of collecting those sheets and putting
them back in place, expected the government to take care of that. The
experience in South India after tsunami in December 2004 speaks the
same. During a visit to a camp site in Tamilnadu, people complained
about how the hinge of a door was not being replaced by concerned NGO,
though it was just a matter of putting a few screws themselves. Living
conditions in camp sites with rows of houses of corrugated asphalt sheet
kept worsening with each passing week. This was due to insufficient
space, poor quality materials and construction, lack of basic services like
drainage and sanitation, inability to maintain and extremely hostile
weather conditions. The question is who made the decision on choice of
material and technology?
Humanitarian agencies implement cash for work programme to support
peoples livelihoods. It is ironical that at the same time, the opportunity
24
of working in building their own shelter is taken away by involving
contractors. This is done in the name of quality standardisation and time
bound delivery. United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation (UNDRO)
and many other reports have time and again pointed out that intermediate
shelters delivered by external agencies fail to fulfill their objectives to
any satisfactory level.
Peoples reconstruction efforts begin soon after the disaster. They start
salvaging building material and components like stones, bricks, wood,
doors, windows, roofing tiles, etc. Most of the times inappropriate
response by external agencies thwarts peoples process and turns the
affected people into passive recipients of aid instead of capable and
resourceful community. This is contrary to Red Cross Principles.14
Community initiatives for intermediate semi-permanent shelters and
reconstruction of their permanent houses in past disasters provide critical
lessons for the future. People, especially in the villages are resourceful
when it comes to creating a shelter for their own selves. They are the
best judge of what they need and how to go about taking care of it. After
the Marathwada earthquake (1993), people used a variety of materials
depending upon what they could afford and what they could access. This
included CGI sheets, corrugate asphalt sheets, sun dried mud bricks,
vegetal matter and even timber. The pre-requisite for them was that the
materials should be lighter, or perceived to be lighter, than what were
commonly used before the earthquake. Adobe or sun dried hand moulded
mud blocks were used to build walls. Many people salvaged the timber
from their old house to make the walls. The poor used vegetal matter for
the walls while using CGI sheets for roof. In Uttarakhand earthquake
(1991), the people used stone, wood planks, wooden posts, and CGI sheets
to improvise the semi-permanent shelter they lived in through a period of
several months to a couple of years, before they could build a permanent
house. The materials were either extracted from the collapsed houses or
purchased locally.
14
Red Cross principle 6 states that we shall attempt to build disaster response on local
capacities.
25
In Gujarat earthquake (2001), people salvaged materials from their
severely damaged or destroyed houses and bought supplementary
materials, when required. Typically, houses were built in such a manner
that less than usual materials were required. Walls were kept low at about
600 mm to 900 mm height, and roof overhangs were made smaller. Heights
of doorways too were reduced. In order to accommodate it, the doorway
was either placed in the gable wall or the roof was raised at the eave to
accommodate the doorway. People found their own innovative solutions.
Past experiences show that the shelter process by people includes myriad
activities such as removal of debris, leveling the ground, clearing the
rubble, salvaging building material and assisting each other with tools,
labour and skills. The community is capable and adept at improvising
their own shelters. These examples have amply demonstrated that even
if the affected communities may have little purchasing power, there are
abundant resources available at the local level. The challenge for
facilitating agencies is to encourage such processes and mobilise people
to ensure that every member of affected community is suitably
rehabilitated at the earliest. Though do no harm is currently one of the
oft-repeated phrases while explaining the shelter interventions,
community capacities are seldom recognised and used.
One of the dilemmas humanitarian agencies face during the initial
interventions is targeting the support within the community with available
aid. Identifying the poor and the most vulnerable who require immediate
humanitarian support is a major challenge. It has been observed
repeatedly by many practitioners working for post-tsunami rehabilitation
that effective targeting is possible by making information available on
local condition and nature and limitations of available support. Once
emergency shelters have been taken care of, the most important for
external humanitarian interventions is to support community in rubble
clearance, material salvaging and information dissemination. This
involvement is critical in building the confidence of the community and
its mobilisation.
26
Intermediate Semi-permanent Shelters
in Kashmir A Case Study
The policy framework of the government provides direction and structure
to all community efforts as well as humanitarian responses. Among past
post-disaster experiences, the Kashmir earthquake (2005) provides the
most comprehensive example of intermediate semi-permanent shelter
policy framework.
The policy framework in Kashmir was based on the key learning from
reconstruction that intermediate semi-permanent shelters are the critical
link between relief phase and long-term rehabilitation. The government
can either perpetuate dependencies by putting up tents and pre-fabricated
structures or can reverse the dependencies that might have started setting
in and strengthen peoples own initiatives. It is with this background
that Government of Jammu and Kashmir supported by Kutch Nav Nirman
Abhiyan evolved a policy for an owner-driven approach for intermediate
semi-permanent shelters.
As the earthquake occurred in early October 2005, very close to onset of
winters, providing a safe shelter at the earliest was a high priority. In the
Kashmir earthquake, 37,607 houses collapsed and 83,616 houses were
damaged to varying degrees.15 Uri, Tangdhar and Poonch were the worst
affected districts in Jammu & Kashmir. In the aftermath of devastation,
people managed with whatever material they could lay their hands on
plastic sheet, tarpaulin, cots, etc. for constructing their emergency
shelters. Due to army presence in the region, a quick support from army
in form of tents was made available. Some NGOs like AKDN got small
number of winterised tents. These efforts were obviously inadequate to
fulfill the requirement.
15
Kashmir Earthquake; Retrofitting Guide. Prof. A. S. Arya. National Seismic Advisor to the
Government of India
27
Given the approaching winters and time required for initiating permanent
house reconstruction, it was essential to develop a clear policy perspective
for intermediate semi-permanent shelters. Even in normal times taking
up construction of a house is not an easy task since all the villages are in
tough mountainous terrain accessible through very narrow unpaved roads,
while some villages can be reached simply only on foot or on a mule. In
the event of heavy rains, land slides are frequent that leads to road closure.
All these difficulties make the reconstruction an expensive proposition.
Considering these constraints, and quick deliberations with the community
in Uri and Tangdhar; the Government of Jammu & Kashmir with support
from Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan developed a policy framework and
declared a cash assistance of Rs. 30,000 with an incentive of Rs. 5,000 if
the intermediate shelters were completed by November 30, 2005 (within
two months of the earthquake). The policy guided affected families to
build a minimum of 200 sq. ft. of shelter and proposed to include all the
families who had already been given Rs. 40,000 as first installment of
assistance towards permanent house.16 This gave impetus to the building
of good quality intermediate semi-permanent shelters by the owners. As
a result of this policy, within two months more than 15,000 shelters were
constructed.
To achieve the intended outcome, the policy defined mechanisms for
supporting initiatives of the owners for building intermediate semipermanent shelters. The government disbursed the support amount
16
The release of first installment of assistance towards permanent housing prior to support
for intermediate shelter was one of major flaws in permanent shelter approach which
has raised many questions and criticism. The policy and approach for intermediate
shelter was not adopted in permanent shelter phase even though interim phase
demonstrated the success of owner driven approach. Even though permanent shelter
approach in Kashmir continues to be termed as owner driven as cash assistance has
been provided to the affected families, policy mechanisms to support such an approach
remained absent. For permanent shelters, Government has acted merely as an insurance
agency or a bank and made partial amount available to affected community for their
permanent housing.
28
through cheques in specially opened accounts for each house owner.
Mechanisms were set up to ensure access to appropriate materials. Small
Scale Industrial Corporation (SICOP) supplied CGI sheets while timber
was supplied through the Forest Department. The Forest Department set
up 12 depots. Mobile depots were organised by SICOP and CGI sheets
were supplied to villages on a specified route from where owners were
encouraged to buy. However, there was considerable delay in sales by
SICOP and majority of people procured CGI sheets through the local
markets. Government set up mechanism for technical supervision and
guidance. Junior Engineers (JEs) from various government departments
were deputed to each village for guidance, supervision, certification and
supporting people in accessing financial assistance and building material.
Training of these JEs was organised to make them aware of objectives,
guidelines and processes of the government programme. The government
engineers were provided technical field support by Kutch Nav Nirman
Abhiyan. In addition to this, a system of grievance redressal in the form
of lok adalats was organised in 6th week after the earthquake. A combined
team from the judiciary, social welfare and engineering department held
the lok adalats and peoples grievances regarding assistance, materials,
housing type, eligibility criteria, were taken up and resolved. The decisions
of lok adalat were followed up by the Government. This mechanism of
grievance redressal was a significant feature for the facilitation of the
owner driven approach. To ensure effective and satisfactory achievement
of intermediate semi-permanent shelter programme objectives,
Government of Jammu & Kashmir in collaboration with Hunnarshala, a
Kutch based NGO, brought out design guidelines with indicative features
for safety and weather insulation in the intermediate semi-permanent
shelters. With support from Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan, a process was
organised to mobilise the house owners with these technical and other
programmatic guidelines to take up construction of intermediate semipermanent shelters.
29
Intermediate semi-permanent shelters constructed by affected families as per the Government policy
guidelines
The principles articulated by Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan for this policy
were derived through intensive discussion with families in Uri and
Tangdhar. The key points are as follows:
Re-use of construction material, which could be salvaged from the
damaged houses,
Providing insulation for comfort in cold climate
Using local technology and practices and fine tuning them to ensure
safety
Focusing on ensuring supplies of building material through material
depots for speedy construction
Most importantly, motivating local capacities to take up owner driven
processes for reconstruction
30
The above policy framework also facilitated NGO interventions and nearly
2,400 families were supported through the coordinated effort of Oxfam,
Actionaid, World vision, Child in Need Institute (CINI) and Church Auxiliary
for Social Action (CASA) by providing CGI sheets. Intervention by
Confederation of Voluntary Associations (COVA - a network of voluntary
organisations, supported by CORDAID) was significant as they organised
affected families in groups of 10 to 12 and assisted them with toolkits to
salvage materials from damaged houses and rebuild their sheds. This
was done under the overall supervision of neighborhood and village level
committee formed by COVA. COVA also organised student volunteers to
support salvaging and recycling of building materials and components.
All the villages of Uri and Tangdhar region were covered under this
programme.
The process outcome in the form of intermediate semi-permanent
shelters provided confidence to local communities and impetus to self
help which contributed a lot during permanent housing reconstruction.
By May 2007, nearly 80% of permanent houses in Tangdhar region had
been completed. However, in Uri region many people continued waiting
for support from NGOs. Many NGOs present in this region caused this
dependency. Typically, NGOs had more focus for their distribution
programmes and did not have clear targeting mechanisms. Some NGOs,
though in small numbers, brought in pre-fabricated designs in the form
of tunnel shaped structures made from CGI sheets with inner lining of
foam for insulation. Other NGOs built on-site steel and CGI sheet
structures and handed over to the affected families. Such support
programmes built dependencies amongst people and the temptations of
receiving the free doles undermined their dignity and self-esteem. Some
NGOs like Help a child, Sustainable Environment and Ecological
Development Society (SEEDS) built more appropriate shelters with timber
and plywood layered walls with CGI sheet roofs in Uri and Poonch regions
respectively through community contribution. The permanent
reconstruction in Uri region took off slowly and very late. However, the
relative warmth of intermediate semi-permanent shelters kept the families
safe and protected.
31
The shelters built by the affected families themselves shows that
communities can improvise with whatever materials they have, to suit
their needs. The local skills and capacity offers a range of solutions. Once
the communities were clear about the government guidelines and norms,
they quickly began building their shelters. A family took normally 2 to 3
days to put up their intermediate shelters locally referred as sheds. Many
families used wooden poles and nailed timber planks for the walling and
put CGI sheet roofs. Others preferred to use CGI sheets for external walling
and then put in an inner lining with timber or plywood as insulation. In
the villages of Nava and Runda in Uri, which had limited damage, the
people have used small stone filler with mud plaster on the inside face,
between the wood posts that support the CGI walling, in order to insulate
the walls. In Poonch, there were some cases where people built low walls
with stone in mud mortar and used CGI sheet for roofing.
As discussed above, the process of constructing intermediate semipermanent shelters involved use of salvaged and recycled material from
old houses. Many families fearing risk to life in their partially damaged
houses wanted to pull down their houses and use the material for
intermediate shelter and later rebuild new houses. To mitigate the risk of
unnecessary waste of reasonably good structures, it was necessary that
people are provided appropriate technical guidance so that informed
decisions are made regarding their existing houses. COVA mobilised
engineering students who were provided quick training on damage
assessment. The students advised families in villages of Uri and Tagdhar
region. This addressed the need of information and awareness at the
right time when the community had just started planning its intermediate
semi-permanent and permanent shelters. Such initial processes lay the
path for more effective reconstruction of permanent housing. It is with
this understanding that many NGOs in Kashmir such as Kutch Nav Nirman
Abhiyan, Hunnarshala, COVA-VAN Kashmir, National Centre for Peoples
Action in Disaster Preparedness (NCPDP), Aga Khan Development Network
(AKDN) took up the processes of community awareness. These processes
strengthened the objectives envisaged in the policy for construction of
intermediate semi-permanent shelters.
32
Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan coordinated with other NGOs like Oxfam,
Actionaid, CINI, CASA, etc. in Tangdhar to discuss and ensure achievement
of the intended outcomes of the government policy for intermediate semipermanent shelters. With this, it was possible to address the needs of
the vulnerable members of the community, who were left out from the
Government process. The social structure of Kashmiri communities was
such that there were large joint families. The government support was
limited in such cases as the eligible amount was only Rs. 35,000. This
was not sufficient to support large families staying in one house. The
coordination with different NGOs in the area helped to direct the
resources to these families who were not supported by the Government
mechanism. Many such cases were identified by the Government
engineers deputed in these villages and were referred to the NGO
coordination committee. These were followed up, verified and supported
by the NGOs. Oxfam had developed a shelter kit using wooden structural
frame and CGI sheets roofing to ensure timely completion of shelters
which were distributed to such vulnerable families. The humanitarian
responses after a disaster indicate the utility of working with a
comprehensive approach that includes not only new semi-permanent
shelter construction but also information dissemination to facilitate
informed decisions and actions. NGO coordination to address the gaps
also worked effectively.
The interventions of COVA after Kashmir earthquake in 2005 are
noteworthy. COVA organised peoples committees in all the villages of
Tangdhar and Uri, the affected regions in Kashmir valley. It assisted them
with tools for rubble clearance and salvaging reusable building materials
quickly after the disaster. This process supported the governments semipermanent shelter programme in achieving its objectives quickly. The
involvement of the committee ensured support to all vulnerable members
of the community, such as the landless, single women, old aged, physically
challenged who were unable to manage on their own in building their
semi-permanent shelters.
The government, with support from National Disaster Management
33
Authority, decided to build pre-fabricated community shelters collected
from Gujarat. These shelters were used in Gujarat after the earthquake
as primary schools. These shelters were brought to Kashmir for use as
emergency community shelters. But the experience showed that while
the government aimed to complete 104 structures, only 10 were completed
by November end. By this time, facilitated by a good policy, most of the
families had already completed their intermediate semi-permanent
shelters. This experience strengthens the earlier argument that emergency
shelter responses based on external pre-fabricated structures are not
only untimely and delayed, but also ineffective in achieving the purpose.
In Kashmir, it has now been proposed to use these structures for other
purposes as the local government may find appropriate.
In a nutshell, intermediate semi-permanent shelter response after Kashmir
earthquake was probably the first response where a clear and effective
policy framework was put in place by the Government to facilitate an
owner driven approach. Supportive mechanisms like bank accounts,
material depots, technical guidance and supervision and lok adalats for
grievance redressal were organised. The policy derived through
community consultation not only strengthened owner driven
reconstruction process but also created space for involvement of
humanitarian agencies to support the peoples process. These efforts
resulted in nearly 15,000 intermediate semi-permanent shelters for the
affected families within 2 months and have lasted them for more than
two years, protecting them from the harsh winter and snow. The winters
were spent by the earthquake affected households in relative warmth in
the intermediate semi-permanent shelters. No major sicknesses or deaths
related to the winter cold were reported during the winter from the quake
affected villages. Many of the families have extended these shelters for
other needs. The process undertaken by the community to build their
own intermediate semi-permanent shelters helped them maintain their
dignity, protect the old and the vulnerable, ensure privacy and security of
women and children. Encouraged by the success, in Tangdhar region more
than 80% of the families completed their permanent houses within two
years.
34
Lessons Learnt
Timeliness
Intermediate semi-permanent shelters need to be built within the first
three to four months after the occurrence of the disaster. Any further
delay causes frustration and dissatisfaction amongst the survivors.
Emergency shelters are best managed by the community themselves.
Humanitarian response can support with necessary materials but only in
a limited way. Humanitarian agencies usually neglect the area of
intermediate shelters. So-called temporary shelters can not be called
intermediate semi-permanent shelters. The delivery of even such
temporary shelters is marred by inadequate quantity, high costs,
procurement delays and insensitive distribution. The evidence suggests
that large contractors, prefabrication suppliers have a relatively minor
role to play in timely construction of intermediate semi-permanent
shelters. The process is most effective, efficient, fast and satisfactory if
it is driven by the people. An external intervention by any agency could
best be directed at strengthening peoples initiatives to build their own
intermediate shelters through supporting the gaps in material, finance,
information, technical guidance and necessary artisan tools.
Contextual Shelter Type
Post disaster situation requires context specific responses. Tent or a
universal pre-fabricated house does not work in every context. Insensitive
supply and distribution of these indicates lack of responsibility in trying
to understand the local context before a response. Regional variations in
terms of culture, livelihoods, lifestyle, socio-political set up, available
resources and extent of damage necessitate context specific responses
for reconstruction. Use of material and technology needs to be evolved
within context-specific constraints and opportunities. Materials that are
commonly used by local community offer the most affordable solution
35
that can be effectively supported by local artisans, maintained easily by
the families and ensure better living conditions. Finally these materials
can be recycled later when the permanent housing is built.
Humanitarian agencies generally love to brand the houses supported by
them as their model and debate how the particular model was more
effective than others. There is a need to get out of this obsession of
shelter models which have repeatedly given poor quality living conditions
to the affected people. Sphere standards17 that are benchmark guidelines
are seldom adhered to at the time of delivery provided to the affected
population.
Policy Framework for Intermediate Semi-permanent
Shelters
It is critical that a participatory policy framework, based on community
initiatives is adopted. It is necessary to have a policy that ensures peoples
right to adequate housing. 18 Policy framework and facilitating
mechanisms that were evolved for construction of intermediate semipermanent shelters after Kashmir earthquake are a good example. Owner
driven policy framework does not mean distribution of cash assistance
only but also creating supportive mechanisms for information, access to
safe land with secured tenure, required materials and skills and quick
grievance redressal. Immediately after the disaster, collective synergy
among the local community must be utilised. This can strengthen
subsequent action at the permanent housing stage. Humanitarian
17
18
36
Sphere project initiated by humanitarian agencies in 1987 is aimed at establishing a
humanitarian charter and minimum standards for disaster response. Various trainings
and other country specific initiatives are also organised to ensure context specific
usage of these standards. For more information, please refer http://
www.sphereproject.org
This is also stated in The Housing Agenda by U.N. Habitat, Within the overall context
of an enabling approach, Governments should take appropriate action in order to
promote, protect and ensure the full and progressive realization of the right to adequate
housing
agencies need to learn how to work in such a policy framework and not
get in an adoption mode, which probably is good for their own branding
but definitely not for the community. The approach that promotes selfhelp in the community with limited assistance from the government or
NGO yields best results. It harnesses peoples creative abilities, and
expedites the process of intermediate shelter building at the earliest in
most dignified way for the survivor families.
Facilitating Community Processes
While we the humanitarian agencies articulate increased focus on
participation of communities, decentralisation and a right based approach,
the evaluation reports indicate that these principles are neglected in
shelter responses, particularly after the disaster. Responses in post
disaster situations work typically to disarm the community by taking control
over decision making away from them. It is required that local capacity is
recognised, respected and strengthened. Needs assessment and
vulnerability assessments are conducted by all external agencies and
projects approved on the basis of the same. It is necessary to understand
the capacity of the local communities and adopt processes that are
consistent with resources and capacities of the local community.
Facilitating community driven process of interim shelter reconstruction
requires education and training of the humanitarian agencies.
Most importantly, participation and engagement of the people in
rehabilitation is not a matter of a set of tools and techniques but a mindset
which sees community and people as insightful, resourceful, competent
and capable owners in the process who can make decisions regarding
time, resources, labour, building materials, technology, design, layout,
etc. Intermediate Semi-Permanent Shelters in Post-Disaster Reconstruction
37
References
Shelter After Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance, UNDRO, 1982
Exploring Key Changes and Developments in Post Disaster Settlement, Shelter and
Housing, 1982 2006, OCHA/ESB/2006/6, UNOCHA, 2006
Corsellis & Vitale, Transitional Settlement: Displaced Populations, UNOCHA, 2005
Ressler, Everett. Issues Related to the Provision of Emergency Shelter in Winter
Conditions (Report on visit to Caldivan Earthquake, Eastern Turkey), UNDRO/Intertect,
1977
Bijan Khazai and Elizabeth Hausler, Intermediate Shelters in Bam and Permanent
Shelter Reconstruction in Villages Following the 2003 Bam, Iran, Earthquake,
Earthquake Spectra 21, S487, 2005
Mary Anderson and Peter J. Woodrow, Rising from the Ashes Development Strategies
in Times of Disaster, UNESCO, 1989
Learning from Previous Earthquake Relief Operations First Briefing Paper, ALNAP
and Provention Consortium, 2005
Natural Catastrophe 2006 Analyses, Assessments, Positions, Knowledge Series,
Munich Re Group, 2006
An Owner Driven Interim Shelter Initiative in J & K, Report on Tangdhar Region, Kutch
Nav Nirman Abhiyan, 2005
Perspectives Todays Ideas for Tomorrows World, Munich Re Group, 2004
Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, The Sphere
Project, Oxfam Publishing, 2000
Rebuilding after Earthquakes Lessons from Planners, William Spangle and
Associates, Inc., 1991
Coming Together a half yearly compilation of information after Gujarat Earthquake
2001, Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan (2001 and 2002)
Binoy Acharya, Vivek Rawal and Vinish Kathuria, Responding to Disasters, Refusing
to Learn Case of the Tsunami Disaster in South India, unpublished document,
UNNATI, 2005
Vivek Rawal and Tara Nair, The Disaster and After A Review of Rehabilitation
Package, Economic and Political Weekly, March 10, 2001
38
39

1 - People in Centre

Transcription

Similar documents

Seasons of the Heart - Several Sources Shelters

live gifts - Kinship Circle

electronic equipment shelter and containerized systems

Abrigos hinchables INKEMA 2013

831- 454-7303 #1

Fall 2013 - Bitter Root Humane Association

Army Standard Family of Shelters Expandable 20` ISO Shelters

animal preparation and response workshop

LMT Brochure - Gichner Shelter Systems