From Disaster to Sustainable Community Recovery: Challenges and Lessons Learned

Transcription

1 1 From Disaster to Sustainable Community Recovery: Challenges and Lessons Learned Anshu Sharma Sustainable Environment and Ecological Development Society (SEEDS), Delhi, India Manu Gupta Sustainable Environment and Ecological Development Society (SEEDS), Delhi, India Rupali Bajaj Sustainable Environment and Ecological Development Society (SEEDS), Delhi, India Rajib Shaw United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), Kobe, Japan

2 2 Abstract Over the years, the need for disaster preparation, and management has acquired greater important due to recurrent disasters, and increased vulnerability of the people. However, still the rehabilitation efforts still lack strategic framework and coordination. During a disaster, the local community as the first respondent is the most important stakeholder. They should thus form the core of any disaster preparedness, and mitigation efforts. Recent initiatives thus reflect the shifting trends. When the massive earthquake hit Gujarat on 26 January 2001, it provided an opportunity to introduce mitigation practices at community level as part of the rehabilitation programme. Fifteen agencies from India, and abroad came together to adopt a model programme called Patanka Navjivan Yojana (Patanka New Life Project), a community-based initiative for post earthquake rehabilitation in Village Patanka, located in Patan District in Gujarat. Although, PNY is one of the many rehabilitation projects, but what makes it different is the sheer level of beneficiary involvement, and the energies generated there from. The project focused on enhancing the community s capacity to become resilient against future disasters. It stressed on investing on people s knowledge building, improving livelihood options, use of local resources, and appropriate transfer of technology, which ensured successful mitigation. The community driven reconstruction in Patanka has been the fastest in the region, and at half the cost when compared to other agency supported contractor driven approaches. The challenge now lies in seeing the same results in other parts of the region, and the country - disaster resilient and conscious communities who can serve their own needs.

3 3 1. Need for Community Based Disaster Management The need for disaster preparedness, and management is felt now more than ever before. The reasons contributing to this need are obvious. Disasters in recent decades are causing more deaths than they did in the earlier century due to increased vulnerability of the people. Also, the same areas are affected by recurrent disasters, and yet the relief and rehabilitation carried out following one disaster does little to protect them against subsequent ones. In areas vulnerable to recent disasters, the approach of not being able to learn from past experiences, has led to a vicious disaster poverty cycle. The main factors identified for such limitations are mainly (Shaw and Sinha 2001): Limited education, and awareness among the stakeholders Lack of confidence in disaster resistant practices. The reconstruction efforts are largely ad-hoc in nature lacking any lacking of a strategic framework, and appropriate coordination (Parashuram and Unnikrishnan 2000). This coupled with lack of disaster preparedness, and mitigation infrastructure, poor information dissemination, and inappropriate measures for accountability have aggravated the problems (Salazar 1998). Apart from this, the population increase has been felt in most parts of the world, which directly contributes to rising trend of loss of life. Therefore, appropriate rehabilitation, and mitigation can potentially reduce loss of lives. In a disaster, there are different types of stakeholders, which are involved in the entire process. These include the local communities, Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), Government at various levels i.e. local, state and national, international organisations, emergency services, academic, and research institutions (Figure 1). However, it is always the local community, as the

4 4 first respondents. Therefore, they should form the core of any disaster preparedness, and mitigation efforts. Figure 1. Disaster Cycle and Development Academicians Development NGO Reconstruction D e v e lo p m e nt Mitigation Prevention Preparedness People Rehabilitation Response D e v e lo p m e nt Disaster Int.. Org Govt. Development It has been felt that, increased coordination, and capacity building among the local community, long term planning, and a greater understanding of the recovery, and rehabilitation issues can potentially improve post disaster actions at community level. Empowering individuals within disaster threatened communities is critical to successful mitigation. The key to successful community based disaster management initiative is to build a disaster conscious community through a culture of prevention.. 2. Earthquake of Gujarat-Towards Promotion of Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation An earthquake struck the state of Gujarat, India on the 26 January 2001(magnitude 7.7, USGS). The devastation that took place in Gujarat state in western India was unprecedented and so widespread that it took several hundred agencies to reach the affected villages in due time. As many as 13,000 people lost their lives and thousands were injured (Earthquake in Gujarat 2001).

5 5 The loss was greater in the urban areas than the rural areas. People in rural areas had single story tenements whereas those in urban areas stayed in multistoried apartment buildings. The latter gave way, crushing lives as a result. Over 300,000 buildings collapsed, and more than twice the number were severely damaged (Shaw et al., 2001). This was a tragic blow to the region that was suffering from a drought conditions, and the aftermath of cyclone in last 3 years. The devastation affected the area socially, economically, and physically. Post earthquake rehabilitation provided an opportunity to introduce mitigation practices at community level. Fifteen agencies from India, and abroad came together to adopt a model programme called Patanka Navjivan Yojana (Patanka New Life Project). Patanka Navjivan Yojana (PNY) is a community-based initiative for post earthquake rehabilitation in Village Patanka, located in Patan District in Gujarat (Figure 2). The village has 256 households, and in the massive earthquake, more than half of the houses of the villages were completely destroyed. Patanka is primarily a farming village. However, there is a severe scarcity of water in the region that has forced people to look for alternative livelihoods. Figure 2. Patanka Location Map Patanka Village District Patan PNY (Figure 3) focused on disaster mitigation making community safer against future disasters. The expectation was to enhance the community s capacity to become resilient against

6 6 future disasters without expecting any support from external agencies. It stressed on investing on people s knowledge building rather than physical infrastructure. Improving livelihood options, empowering individuals so that they can take care of their own needs, strengthening local institutions, use of local resources, and appropriate transfer of technology are among the key factors that ensure successful mitigation. Figure 3. Patanka Navjivan Yojana 3. Patanka Navjivan Yojana - Patanka New Life Project 3.1 Project Goals and Objectives The goal of the Patanka Navjivan Yojana was to build a model for disaster resistant community equipped with safer, and sustainable livelihood, which will serve its own development needs, and serves as a model for others (PNY 2003). The objectives of the project were as follows: Focus on mitigation: to make vulnerable communities safer from the future disasters. To strive alongside the community in identifying suitable means of livelihood for making itself independent. To empower communities so that it is aware of its own needs and is actively able to strive to achieve them

7 7 To establish suitable standards for disaster resistant communities by assisting the community demonstrate its achievements in the post earthquake scenario. To develop valuable information on implementation technology, and disseminate it globally. 3.2 The Partners The project is the result of a coming together of role-players from a wide range of sectors -from voluntary agencies, governments, donors, multi-lateral agencies, private corporations, and the community. The project partners include (Shaw et al. 2003): i) United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), Japan ii) iii) iv) NGOs Kobe, Japan Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Centre (EDM), Japan National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET), Nepal v) GeoHazards International (GHI), USA vi) vii) viii) ix) Gap Inc., USA Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES), Germany Patanka Village Community National Centre for People's Action in Disaster Preparedness (NCPDP), India x) Patan District Administration, Government of Gujarat xi) xii) National Centre for Disaster Management (NCDM), India Sustainable Environment & Ecological Development Society (SEEDS), India Although, Patanka is one of many villages which witnessed the post earthquake rehabilitation phase, what makes it different is the sheer level of beneficiary involvement, and the energies generated there from. Each family contributed seventy five percent of the reconstruction cost of

8 8 its house. Their contribution was in terms of basic building material, salaries of masons, and also self-labour. The implementing agency (SEEDS) contributed in terms of training to masons, and house owners on earthquake resistant construction, without deviating from the traditional house designs, and local building materials. A capped amount of support in terms of cement, and steel for incorporation of earthquake resistant features was also provided. This is made possible by the fact that the local villagers were in the driving seat for all activities. They themselves operated the timber, steel, and cement workshops, needed to make material locally available, and also carried out the construction work on their houses. Entire families were involved: men did the masonry work, women helped in ferrying material; children did water curing on the masonry. The house owner and his family could choose their own layout of the house. Architects, and engineers from the implementing agency merely facilitated the process. Due to the flexibility in choice of design, and material, the rebuilt village does not look like an alien urban neighborhood planted in the rural setting, but is more like what it has always been - a simple, organic, and `homely' village. Just that it is safer in terms of earthquake resistance of buildings, as well as inhabitants. 4. Implementation Strategy The entire project was based on incremental community planning, and implementation phases (Gupta and Sharma 2002). It was divided into three broad stages. In the first stage, an overall plan was devised based on principles set for rehabilitation, and mitigation (Figure 4). This was done in the first weeks of the commencement of the project. Members of the project team had studied the 1993, Latur Earthquake (Maharashtra, India) rehabilitation programme in detail, and had rich experience of addressing needs of the people following the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, and subsequent disasters in Turkey, and Taiwan. For example, it was found that application of safer

9 9 building practices is the key point of effective Risk Management Process (Shaw, 2001). This, in turn reflects a lack of appropriate risk communication amongst the citizens, local officials, and aid groups. Also, it was observed that in the rural communities, housing is mostly rooted in local culture, traditions, and climatic conditions. In the second stage, an intensive interaction between the project team, and the community enabled preparation of realistic community level plans, their implementation, and building local capacities towards building disaster resilient community. In the third stage, rehabilitation programmes were being integrated into ongoing government development programmes. This was aimed at ensuring sustainability of the efforts put in so far. The local government was strengthened, and the means for improved security to livelihood were worked out. Establishing Principles of Rehabilitation Figure 4. Principles and Planning Strategic Planning Needs Assessment Ensuring Sustainability Local Community Plan Joint Implementation Integration with Development Capacity Building STAGE I STAGE II STAGE III

10 10 Incorporating the principles stated above, an overall plan was evolved. The plan was in three parts. a. The Strategic Plan: In the first part, the project team based on past experiences, and available research drew a broad framework of rehabilitation - The mission, aims and objectives. b. The Local Community Plan: In the second part, the project team actively consulted the community as well as the local government so that implementing strategies are culturally, and environmentally compliant, acceptable to the people to whom they are addressed to, and are within the framework, and guidelines laid down by the local government. c. Action Plan: In the third part, the project team devised specific Action Plans for various components of the project, these were primarily based on local needs and existing capacities. 4.1 Process Identifying, and prioritizing problems: included undertaking a community survey, identifying community problems, and opportunities, and determining goals and priorities. Work out strategies, options, and tradeoffs: included allocation of available resources, identifying specific proposals, identifying constraints, and reviewing the sequence of planned actions. Planning phase: included identification of proposals/tasks, developing schedules, planning for implementation, identifying project teams, and deciding immediate tasks. Based on the action plan thus developed, implementation work was started. 4.2 Establishment of priorities For an outsider, the immediate need was of shelter, as evident from the scene of collapsed houses. However, the community had equally urgent problems of water, employment, and children's education after the loss of their school. A series of community planning meetings were

11 11 organized in the village with different stakeholder groups. The action planning process established locally felt priorities based on immediate needs, as well as local capacity to overcome constraints and implement the plan. The urgent need was to rebuild the village school and houses, and also to create employment opportunities for the local residents, men and women alike. The second priority was to resolve the water scarcity crisis through some sort of large scale, and long-term water management programme. Clear objectives were framed on this basis; with responsibilities largely resting on the community members themselves to achieve them through self-initiative supported by minimal technical, and material aid from the project partners. 4.3 Implementation The construction of houses was taken up in phases as there were only five project personnel - an architect, a structural engineer, and three assistant engineers, and trainer masons that were seeing the project through on site. This also helped in keeping the overhead costs low. Besides, the entire responsibility of constructing the units was on the residents, and their hired masons. The project team trained the masons through periodic workshops, using audio-visual means, models, and on the job training. Steel, cement, and timber workshops were set-up within the village, where local volunteers, with help from the project team, managed the stocking, processing, and distribution of material. Management systems were set up at all levels, including smart cards for households that gave real-time information on extent of work carried out, work remaining, material, used etc. Shake table tests were carried out wherein two house models, one with technical interventions, and one without, were shaken through impacts on a mobile table, so as to simulate earthquake

12 12 impact conditions. These helped in spreading awareness towards adoption of earthquake safe construction practices, and also convince owners of houses which were partially destroyed, and which could be safe to live in after undertaking their retrofitting. Following this, retrofitting process had been initiated to make safe those houses that had not collapsed, or those that were rebuilt by owners before the project intervention was initiated. Alongside, interventions on the second phase of the action plan pertaining to extension of livelihood program, and water management program have been initiated. The project involved training of local community, and the masons had resulted in a mason s guild, which is trained in earthquake resistant construction and retrofitting. This informal group of masons has now been registered as a construction company, providing livelihood opportunities to these masons, and promoting entrepreneurship development. 5. Mobilization of Resources Resource mobilization was carried out at three levels: From the community: to ensure maximum contribution in terms of land, labour, and material, From partner agencies: in terms of technical knowledge, and skills on safe, sustainable, and locally empowering rehabilitation, and From external donor groups: for financial support. In the final package, technically sound teams from within project partners, namely the UNCRD, EDM-Japan, SEEDS, GHI, and NGOs Kobe pooled their technical material, and personnel to carry out research and develop sound, and appropriate construction technologies suitable to the area. NGOs Kobe, Gap Inc., UNCRD, EDM-Japan, and GHI contributed

13 13 finances to carry out the field operations. The technical team from the project trained the masons and house-owners, and also supervised construction work on site. 6. Results Achieved The project has delivered results at two levels o Reconstruction/retrofitting of houses (Figure 5) o Capacity building of the local community Figure 5. Reconstruction of Houses in Patanka Livelihood: The construction process has created a guild of trained masons of the villagers. The farmers whose livelihood was destabilized due to the drought have learnt the skill of earthquake resistant construction by building their own house, assisting the masons, and participating in the mason training workshops. This has created employment opportunities for these villagers, who can use it as a means of livelihood. Sense of ownership: The residents have a great sense of ownership, and pride over the houses, and infrastructure reconstructed, primarily because they themselves decided the designs (there were no imposed prototype designs, and each family decided on its house

14 14 design), they provided most of the material, they paid for the skilled labour, they themselves served as the unskilled labour, and had a central role in all stages of the process. Synergy: These masons from PNY are now helping to spread awareness regarding earthquake resistant technology under Parvat Yatra (A journey to the mountain, covering the earthquake threatened hill states of northern India), thereby synergysing the resources of the two campaigns, and promoting experience sharing. The socio-cultural attributes of the community were preserved since the village was redeveloped along the same organic pattern, and houses built in same layouts using same material as is typical of traditional villages, and houses in the region but with earthquake resistant features inbuilt in it. 7. Sustainability In the entire process, the following features were significant to ensure long-term sustainability of the initiative: a. Focusing in people s knowledge more than physical infrastructure. Capacity building exercises in the project have brought confidence in the people on earthquake resistant building technology. b. Improving livelihood options. By imparting training to the local communities and masons has led to creation of a mason s company that would now market its own services not just within Patanka but to all other neighbouring villages as well. This is a useful livelihood opportunity in a region where agricultural produce is not enough to sustain households. The Patanka masons are already charging premium on their work skills.

15 15 c. Use of local resources and appropriate technology: At all stages of implementation, it was emphasized on using local resources whether in terms of materials used for construction or the use of the skill of the local community, thereby decreasing or limiting the dependence on the external or implementing agency. The project also used appropriate transfer of technology suitable for the rural setting, and matching their economical and social conditions. d. Empowering Individuals: Having taken part in the reconstruction themselves, each individual household is fully aware about disaster resistant construction. Moreover, as a result of their interaction with the project team, their own traditional knowledge base, and practices were successfully incorporated in the reconstruction process. It can be safely assumed that future construction activities undertaken by them would incorporate the same features that they learnt when the project team was present. This would be the best proof of a successful mitigation practice. e. Strengthening Local Institutions: Local institutions, and community leaders played a pivotal role in the rehabilitation process. Having understood, and implemented the programme jointly with the Project Team, the Panchayat (local elected government) strongly felt the need to incorporate risk reduction in all future development activities. f. Expansion in coverage: The process of neighbouring villages taking interest in the happenings at Patanka has already started. In its second phase the project is initiating replication of the model in another village in the block, but this time with a further reduced contribution by external agencies. The initiative is aimed at demonstrating that the process is replicable. With a mere 10 percent contribution coming from external sources, local residents are building for themselves disaster resistant houses, and in and around them disaster

16 16 resistant communities that work on the principles of applied knowledge but retaining local wisdom and practices. g. International Workshop: ACTAHEAD, a three-day International workshop was organized at Manesar, Haryana in 2-4 December 2002, on community based Disaster Management with participation from all over India, and six countries, who collected to discuss the issues aiming at improving safety practices in the most disaster threatened communities. It was a gathering of direct practitioners who are working in the field on these issues. The theme of the workshop was based on the experiences from PNY Project. It was co-organized by FES, UNCRD, and SEEDS. 8. Conclusion and Lessons Learned The Project has operated primarily in a research, and development mode, wherein a wide range of lessons has been learnt. Primary among these are: Safe houses do not have to be expensive: A number of variations of technology, and materials were adopted, adapted, developed, and tested. It was concluded, without doubt, that safe construction technologies do not have to be heavily dependent on cement, and steel, but can work very well with minimal amounts of these materials, and heavy doses of appropriate manners of using these and stones. Involvement of communities in processes leads to greater ownership on products: The basic attribute that people were involved in every stage of planning, designing, and implementing the project, made their sense of ownership, achievement, commitment, joy, and pride immeasurable. This in turn led to the project being implemented in a timely, inexpensive, efficient, and honest manner.

17 17 Hands on training for masons is more effective than classroom sessions: Mason training carried out on site, while working with tools, and materials, proved far more effective since the retention factor of this was much higher as compared to classroom like training sessions. Audio-visual means, and models were used in some cases for collective training workshops, but the effect of training two-three masons at a time at the site of their construction was far greater. Cooperation: The exercise in mitigation witnessed cooperation of multilateral agencies at another level. Building on each other s strengths, and resources with the objective of strengthening the vulnerable community has proved to be a unique, and exhilarating experience. Open ended, and community based projects yield monumental spin-offs: The project started as a reconstruction project, but due to the methodology adopted, created many side-benefits in terms of livelihood strengthening, community mobilization, environmental improvement, water management, and health and sanitation improvement. Well implemented, and documented grassroots initiatives can, and do influence national policy environment: The National Centre for Disaster Management, an advisory partner agency in the project, has been able to support the identification of policy lessons drawn from the methodology of the project, which are currently being used as dissemination material for a national policy debate by the Centre. The Patanka experiment has been provided valuable lessons for introducing measures on mitigation at community level. Most important of which has been the need to address the capacity and the motivation of individual households, supplemented by strengthened community structures. The community driven reconstruction in Patanka has been the fastest in the region,

18 18 and at half the cost when compared to other agency supported contractor driven approaches. The challenge now lies in seeing the same results in other parts of the region, and the country - Disaster resilient communities who can serve their own needs. Acknowledgements The initiative was a joint effort of all different organizations and individuals. Their integrated efforts and resources (both financial and human resources) are highly appreciated. People of Patanka are the owner of the project: their help and cooperation in building their lives and livelihood are highly appreciated. The project was a learning exercise to all of us. Reference Earthquake in Gujarat Directorate of Information Booklet, Gujarat State Publication, Gandhinagar, India, 52 pp. Gupta M. and Sharma A. (2002): The sustainable community rehabilitation handbook: Editors, Shaw R. and Okazaki K., UNCRD-SEEDS Publication, Kobe, Japan, 26 pp. Parasuraman S., and Unnikrishnan P. V Disaster response in India: an overview, In: India Disaster Reports: towards a policy initiative, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India, pp PNY PNY: Towards Sustainable Community Recovery, Editors: Shaw R., Britton N., and Gupta M., UNCRD Publications, Kobe, Japan, 43 pp. Salazar A Disasters, the World Bank and participation, relocation housing after the 1993 earthquake in Maharashtra, India, available at GUJARATDEVELOPMENT/message/64.

19 19 Shaw, R., and Sinha, R Preliminary Observations. GIS Development, 3, Shaw, R., Sinha, R., Goyal, A., Saita, J., Arai, H., Choudhury, M., Jaiswal, K., and Pribadi, K The Bhuj Earthquake of January 2001, IIT-EDM Joint Reconnaissance Report, 157 pp. Shaw R., Kobayashi M., Kameda H., Gupta M., Sharma A., Nakagawa Y., and Banba M International Cooperation in a Post-disaster Scenario: A Case Study from Gujarat, India. In: Journal of Natural Disaster Science.