Chapter 1 Early Recovery-The Context for Housing and Community Reconstruction

·         Policy makers

·         Project managers

·         Lead disaster agency

·         Humanitarian agencies

Introduction

By understanding and recognizing these common steps, different stakeholders can ensure better cooperation and coordination, which in turn will support a more consistent and efficient response that better meets the needs of the affected population.

In certain situations, especially after a large-scale emergency, government may establish a dedicated organization or taskforce to coordinate, reinforce, or in some cases temporarily replace the responsibilities of line ministries. The taskforce can sometimes better coordinate tasks among ministries and departments. The taskforce is usually created for a specific period of time and will return responsibilities to the relevant line ministries, either gradually or when specific objectives are met. For a detailed discussion of these options, see Chapter 13, Institutional Options for Reconstruction Management.

There can also be challenges with military involvement. In some countries, the cost of the military’s support is high and it may get charged against assistance budgets. The military is not always used to operating in the complex, multi-stakeholder environment of a disaster recovery situation, and may have little experience in listening to community concerns or accepting civil authority. Having the military run camps is usually not an appropriate long-term strategy, although the military’s assistance in setting up these camps and their infrastructure can be crucial. Also, the military is generally not experienced in coordinating housing recovery and reconstruction, although there are notable exceptions, such as after the 2004 North Pakistan earthquake, where the military coordinated certain aspects of the inspection system for housing reconstruction. Lastly, where there is a prevalence of NGOs involved in reconstruction, conflicts may arise between the NGO culture (especially that of NGOs with pacifist origins) and the culture of the military.

An outline strategy must be agreed to within the first weeks of the disaster for stakeholders to collaborate effectively and manage the needs of the affected population. It is generally developed by government and the lead disaster agency, in collaboration with affected communities and with the support of humanitarian agencies. This strategy is then reviewed and updated regularly as new and more detailed assessment information becomes available, until a full policy or strategy is defined, as described in #10 in the “The Steps in Response and Reconstruction” table, above. See Chapter 2, Assessing Damage and Setting Reconstruction Policy, for a description of the assessment process and the content of a housing and community reconstruction policy.

Reconstruction strategies are agreed to on a response-by-response basis. Within the humanitarian community, certain topics are commonly included in strategy documents. The same themes are common in situation reports (“sitreps”) and funding proposals. Terminology will vary and additional topics are often included. The common elements of a reconstruction outline strategy include (1) introduction and context analysis, (2) goals (or strategic objectives), (3) needs assessment, (4) priorities for the sector, (5) activities, (6) projected outputs and outcomes, (7) projected impact (also called indicators), (8) intersector linkages, (9) timeline, and (10) resources.

While humanitarian agencies are likely to take the lead in helping government articulate the outline strategy, IFI participation (or, at a minimum, IFI review and revision of the strategy) is essential if IFI financing is expected to be utilized in reconstruction. It is only through early involvement that IFI knowledge and policy perspectives can be incorporated in early decisions.

Factors that influence the reconstruction approach in urban areas include:

• Higher population density and the relocation options available to displaced persons
• More informal housing, much of it located in high-risk areas
• More multi-family housing and a larger proportion of renters
• Ownership and titling issues may require legal procedures to resolve
• More and generally more capable public sector organizations, including those responsible for disaster management, but often not used to working together
• Potential for disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures to be based on planning and regulation
• Higher income levels and living standards of the affected population, potentially requiring more generous assistance strategies
• Higher land values and less undeveloped land
• Unique and more challenging environmental risks
• Higher value and more infrastructure investments
• More complex social structures that are likely to give rise to conflicts and to complicate participation in reconstruction planning
• More clearly defined economic and social interests and more sophisticated political organizations
• Economic effects from the urban disaster that affect the rest of the country
  

Factors that influence the reconstruction approach in rural areas include:

• Lower land values
• Ownership and titling issues that can sometimes be resolved through negotiation
• The major role that the social structure plays in the dynamics of reconstruction
• The relative ease with which community participation can be achieved
• A higher sense of ownership
• The lack of institutional capacity for planning and regulation
• Housing that is usually designed and built by owners themselves or by masons, so DRR measures should be based on building awareness and on training construction workers
  

The differences between planning processes in urban and rural areas are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, Land Use and Physical Planning. The case study on the 2003 Bam earthquake, below, describes the differential approach to reconstruction taken in urban and rural areas of Iran.

The Options Facing Displaced and Non-Displaced Populations

The process that people and households go through after a disaster to stabilize their housing situation can be quite lengthy, convoluted, and complex. People affected by the same disaster will be affected differently and will respond differently. Some will begin reconstruction of their partially damaged housing in the first days after the disaster, while others will be displaced for a period of time, even finding their situation changing from week to week for many months or even years. It is not uncommon that households affected by a disaster never again attain the level of prosperity and security they had before the event.

It is important to understand the range of options people face and not to impose artificial “phases” on diverse situations. These phases are sometimes more indicative of the bureaucratic practices and capacities of the agencies involved in response and reconstruction than they are of the priorities of the affected population. For example, in some past responses, support for reconstruction began only months after a disaster, after the affected populations themselves began rebuilding, because some agencies believed that reconstruction did not contribute to humanitarian objectives, or even distracted from them.

The following twelve options—six for displaced populations and six for non-displaced populations—are often used by the humanitarian community.

Following disasters, it is imperative to minimize the distance and duration of displacement, while keeping safety in mind. This allows people to better maintain their livelihoods and allows households to protect their land, property, and possessions. The displacement typology should not be perceived as describing a phase of resettlement, but instead as describing subcategories of the affected population. Displacement can continue long after post-disaster risks have receded, due to (1) the inability of households to document their property rights, which may be a prerequisite to reconstruction; (2) inappropriate reconstruction strategies, such as one that ignores the variety of needs within the affected population; or (3) the lack of resources and capacities of government and agencies to assist the displaced population.

Before the disaster, an affected household belonged to one of the categories listed above. After the disaster, it may move through one or more of the options for displaced or non-displaced population, and will eventually cycle back to one of the categories listed above. For example, the owners of an urban house that is badly damaged (house owner-occupant) may temporarily camp in another part of town (urban self-settlement), but eventually decide to resettle by buying an urban apartment (apartment owner-occupant). The number of paths through these options is almost infinite.

The ultimate goal of housing reconstruction is to ensure that all those affected by a disaster, whether they have been displaced or not, are eventually situated in a “durable solution.” If transitional resettlement has relocated a significant percent of the population away from the affected area, an effort may be required to ascertain how many plan to return, so that the housing need is not overestimated. If reconstruction begins spontaneously and is being carried out in a way that creates unacceptable risks, the reconstruction strategy may need to compensate families for work already done in order to enlist their collaboration in improving the safety of construction.

The implementation of the housing and community reconstruction policy must incorporate and equitably support the needs of those in all categories. See Chapter 4, Who Gets a House? The Social Dimension of Reconstruction, and Chapter 6, Reconstruction Approaches, to see how these categories can be used when defining the assistance strategy.

Resolving property rights issues often needs to be a high priority at the beginning of reconstruction programs, requiring considerable capacity from national and international stakeholders. See Chapter 7, Land Use and Physical Planning, for a list of strategies to address property rights issues and case studies of good practice.

Transitional shelter is used to house affected households with habitable, covered living space and a secure, healthy living environment with privacy and dignity during the period between a natural disaster and the availability of a permanent shelter solution. Communities have differing capacities to cope until permanent reconstruction is completed. The decision to employ transitional shelter should be made in consultation with the affected populations, keeping in mind that the preference for transitional shelter may be community-specific.

Transitional shelter provides incremental support from the moment recovery begins, and gives households mobility and autonomy. Advocates seek also to coordinate all shelter efforts from immediately after the disaster. It is distinct from temporary shelter (which is occupied immediately after a disaster and understood to be time-limited), in that it offers shelter on-site until the completion of reconstruction for those not displaced or throughout the displacement period for those displaced. Transitional shelter shares some characteristics with what is called “semi-permanent shelter,” but, because it is generally moveable, may provide more flexibility as conditions change after the disaster and during the reconstruction period. For an example of an ambitious temporary shelter program, see the case study on the temporary housing built following the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy earthquake, below.

1. Transitional shelter programs can be implemented by humanitarian organizations without experience in transitional settlement or reconstruction. While the initial cost is similar to some traditional temporary solutions, such as tents, the operating costs may be significantly lower (compared to running a camp, for example).
2. Because the designs almost always use local materials, the resources that are spent in construction circulate in the local economy and help jump-start supply chains needed for the reconstruction phase, possibly reducing the need for purchasing and warehousing of building materials by agencies.
3. Production of shelters can start the process of educating builders and the public on hazard-resistant construction principles and techniques, which will later be employed in reconstruction.
4. The designs are sufficiently flexible to accommodate differences in family size, location, culture, and availability of materials.
   

Transitional shelter can be advantageous for the affected population as well, for the following reasons.

1. If transitional shelters are sufficiently durable to last until the completion of reconstruction, which may take a number of months or even years, the need for multiple moves by a family between the disaster and the completion of reconstruction is reduced.
2. Transitional shelters—being mobile, flexible, and under the control of the family—permit households to quickly return to the site where they have land rights or tenure, once it is deemed safe, allowing them to protect whatever assets still remain, to begin on-site reconstruction, to reestablish their livelihoods, and to preserve social networks.
3. The best designs allow the household to upgrade or incorporate the shelter into permanent reconstruction (for instance, as an extra room or a storage area), or permit the reuse of the majority of materials in permanent reconstruction.

The case study, below, on reconstruction following the 2005 North Pakistan earthquake demonstrates how transitional shelter materials can be reused in permanent housing.

With respect to design, transitional shelters can usually be constructed quickly, with simple tools and local, relatively low-skilled labor, including that of the family itself. While designed for local materials and construction techniques, transitional shelter designs should also reflect agreed-upon standards that provide adequate safety and protection to the users. Often, the materials for transitional shelters are assembled and distributed as kits, which is helpful for affected families who may need to transport them. In fact, transitional shelter is designed to be disassembled and relocated. This may be advantageous if there are delays in the resolution of land rights or tenure, households can’t return immediately to their land (until floodwaters recede, for example), decisions are pending as to whether a household must be relocated, or on-site reconstruction progresses to the point where the transitional shelter is in the way.

1. A transitional shelter strategy does not exempt government from addressing the need for water, sanitation, and electricity at the sites where families locate their shelters. This may require providing interim services, such as water delivery and storage and latrines, until infrastructure and services are permanently restored.
2. Some families’ land rights may not be readily resolved, leaving families settled indefinitely occupying the land where their transitional shelter is located, but with no legal status.
3. Government may become complacent with the transitional shelter solution and offer no other support, especially if resources for reconstruction fall short during the “transitional” period.
4. Even if local materials are used, production of the shelters may overtax supply channels, driving up prices or extending production times.
5. The transitional shelters may themselves represent a risk, especially if there is insufficient experience among those implementing the program. Units may be poorly constructed or fabricated of unsafe materials, unsafely sited, or located in areas with insufficient basic services.
   

The case study, below, on the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami reconstruction in Indonesia summarizes the findings of a transitional shelter program evaluation that showed that the positive economic impact of transitional shelter declined if it was occupied for too long.

In addition, when resources are insufficient for reconstruction, funds for preventive and risk-reduction measures may be severely constrained, so vulnerability is just built back. Overloading response and relief with financial resources, while short-changing risk reduction and reconstruction resiliency, is a serious reconstruction pitfall. Government must work with its funders to resolve this dilemma. The case study on the 1963 Skopje reconstruction, below, recounts how temporary housing was occupied for so long after the earthquake it eventually affected the physical development of the city.

Throughout reconstruction, funding from different sources will go through peaks and troughs. Emergency contingency funds, such as the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), are made available almost immediately, while money from public appeals will flow early on, although not immediately. Government often injects substantial funding initially, although this funding is often reduced as funding from other sources, such as IFIs, including the World Bank, is mobilized.

To avoid this gap and to ensure consistent availability of funds, it is imperative that relationships with all funding sources are carefully managed and that funds are carefully programmed and tracked.[7] The programming of funds should include, to the greatest extent possible, the funding of bilateral agencies and NGOs whose initial preference may be to operate outside of the government coordination system, since this funding is sometimes the most flexible and readily available. Other solutions are discussed in Chapter 15, Mobilizing Financial Resources and Other Reconstruction Assistance. Arrangements available through the World Bank are described in Chapter 20, World Bank Response to Crises and Emergencies.

The British Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors proposes, in its report, Mind the Gap! Post-Disaster Reconstruction and the Transition from Humanitarian Relief, that chartered surveyors, geographic information systems (GIS) technicians, disaster risk professionals, and other “built environment” experts with expertise in planning and management of complex projects can play a crucial role in closing the implementation gap between humanitarian relief and reconstruction and development.^[8] 

Good coordination by government, with support from the humanitarian community, can help mitigate these gaps. The indicators proposed by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in 1991 for the evaluation of humanitarian programs (as updated) include an indicator for program “connectedness.”^[10] As explained by the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Assistance (ALNAP) in its evaluation guide based on these indicators, “connectedness” refers to the need to ensure that activities of a short-term emergency nature are carried out in a way that takes longer-term development requirements into account.^[11] However, the guide also states that while the need for linkages among humanitarian action, recovery, and development are well understood, no consensus exists on how lifesaving humanitarian action should support longer-term needs, mentioning natural disasters as an example of where this objective is particularly difficult to achieve.

1. Agencies should be cognizant and respectful of planning, strategies, and coordination mechanisms that have already been established when they begin operations in the disaster zone.
2. Agencies should realize that every disaster is unique in its complexity, impact, and cultural context, and should work toward an integrated approach that responds first and foremost to the needs of those affected.
3. Address the unique situations and requirements of those affected, whether displaced or not, without discriminating against any sub-group of the population.
4. Seriously consider implementing the transitional shelter approach, which addresses shelter needs over the entire period from the disaster to a permanent housing solution, rather than addressing needs in phases.
5. Make every effort to minimize the gaps between humanitarian programs and reconstruction and development, by getting all key funding institutions involved early in planning and by anticipating the transitions in delivery that will inevitably occur.
6. Expect reconstruction to take a long time, and encourage communities to think in those terms without undermining their determination to recover. Design interim shelter solutions based on realistic assumptions about time.
7. Don’t shortchange reconstruction. Adequate financial and material resources must be made available throughout the response, recovery, and reconstruction process. Governments should work with funding sources to plan the distribution of available resources over a realistic reconstruction period.

More than 1,000 residents of Skopje, Macedonia, perished in the 1963 earthquake, and more than 3,300 persons were seriously injured. With the vast majority of its 36,000 housing units destroyed or damaged, 76 percent of Skopje’s population was left without shelter. Decisions made immediately after the disaster had a major impact on Skopje’s reconstruction. Vladimir Ladinski, an architect and urban planner who lived in the city throughout the recovery process, has written a detailed, 30-year longitudinal study of the transition from relief to full reconstruction. He notes that the relief operation was probably one of the most efficient on record, with minimal aid being wasted and with authorities having very clear priorities. But despite such achievements, Ladinski raises “serious doubts [about] whether the rapid initial planning decision on the location of new settlements was correct.” His reference is to the decision, within a few days of the earthquake, to locate temporary housing in sites surrounding the city. It was naively expected that these temporary houses would be subsequently demolished to make way for permanent dwellings some nine months after the disaster. However, in modified form, many remained in place much longer and had a negative impact on the development of the overall city plan.

Sources: Ian Davis, 1975, “Skopje Rebuilt-Reconstruction following the 1963 Earthquake,” Architectural Design, vol.11, pp. 660-663; V. Ladinski, 1997, in A. Awotona, Reconstruction after Disaster, Issues and Practices (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 73-107; and United Nations, 1970, Skopje Resurgent (New York: United Nations).

The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami left more than 550,000 people displaced in the province of Aceh, Indonesia. The IFRC responded by implementing a transitional shelter program. From August 2005 to December 2007, some 19,920 transitional shelters were built for families that were still living in tents or shacks. The purpose of this transitional shelter program was to provide a solution that would “fill the gap” between an emergency shelter solution, such as tents, and permanent houses. The steel-framed houses with wooden walls and floor and a sheet-metal roof were intended to provide shelter for a period of 2–4 years. A study initiated by the IFRC and the Netherlands Red Cross showed that the program had a strong positive social impact and a slight positive economic impact on the beneficiaries. This positive impact continued even after the household moved to a permanent house, which shows that the benefits of transitional shelter can go beyond only being a temporary solution for housing after a disaster. However, the positive impact is seen only when a household lives in the transitional shelter for a relatively short period. Transitional shelter should be kept as a short-term solution because it does not meet the needs of a family over a longer period of time. There was a noticeable decrease in economic impact when a family lived in a transitional shelter for a longer period.

Source: S. G. van Dijk, 2009, A Socio-Economic Impact Study on a Transitional Housing Program. Case Study of a Red Cross and Red Crescent Housing Program in Indonesia (research report, Eindhoven University of Technology, in collaboration with the IFRC and Netherlands Red Cross).

The large-scale destruction caused by the 2003 earthquake in Bam, Iran, made it unlikely that affected communities would soon have permanent housing. Authorities estimated that at least two years of temporary shelter would be needed before permanent housing would be available, at least in urban areas. National relief agencies pushed to establish camps, despite the strong desire of the people to erect shelters on or close to their own land. The justification of the agencies was that camps would simplify the delivery of services and lower their costs. Yet worldwide, experience has shown that establishing camps for displaced people following disasters has negative socioeconomic impacts on reconstruction and long-term development, and only makes sense when concerns such as security make other alternatives impossible. Therefore, a national strategy for housing reconstruction was formulated and made public. It entailed (1) in urban areas, providing interim or transitional shelters—including prefabricated units on vacant urban lots or the family’s land—that would address housing needs for a 2-year period for the entire affected population, and (2) in rural areas, building permanent housing on original housing plots as soon as practicable. Permanent shelter in urban areas would not be built until the city master plan was updated and reconstruction guidelines were approved.

Prefab houses measuring 18 square meters were provided to all urban households who could prove (using, among other things, the testimony of other residents) that they lived in the area prior to the disaster. For households with more than four people, two prefab houses were provided. An additional unit was available for purchase. The cost for a prefab house was around US$2,000, including transport. Each was installed on the land designated by the household.

Source: Victoria Kianpour, UNDP Iran, 2009, personal communication, http://www.undp.org.ir.

In October 2005, a strong earthquake and several aftershocks struck Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, northern Punjab, and the North West Frontier Province, devastating poor communities in towns and villages located in harsh, mountainous terrain. Even with winter approaching, many homeless families decided not to leave their villages for government camps because of concerns about their land and livestock, the sources of their livelihood. To help these families, Habitat for Humanity Pakistan (HFHP) introduced a dome-shaped transitional shelter made with materials that could be reused later in permanent houses. The shelters consisted of a tubular pipe structure, galvanized corrugated iron sheets attached using metal ties, and foam insulation. The transitional shelters were easy to assemble and cost about as much as a tent. Approximately 400 of them were erected in the mountainous areas around Balakot and Muzaffarabad. During the spring of 2006, HFHP began building new, earthquake-resistant homes, following guidance from the government’s Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority. Around Balakot and other villages in the Union Council area, HFHP implemented a new construction program that included recycling heavy timber from the destroyed houses into lighter wooden construction elements, using mobile sawmills that were transported from village to village. The galvanized corrugated iron sheets from the transitional shelters were used as roof elements in the new homes. More than 345 new homes were built and an additional 5,500 families were assisted with sawmill services.

Sources: Mario C. Flores, Habitat for Humanity International, 2009, personal communication; and Habitat for Humanity Pakistan Earthquake, http://www.habitat.org/disaster/active_programs/pakistan_earthquake_2005.aspx.

Soon after the April 6, 2009, Abruzzo earthquake, whose epicenter was near the city of L’Aquila, Italy, the Italian government began to analyze the feasibility of a temporary housing project. The first estimate after the earthquake was that 20,000–25,000 people would need temporary shelter. Later, it was agreed that 4,500 units would accommodate the temporary housing demand of all families with three or more members whose houses were destroyed or severely damaged by the earthquake.

Previous Italian experience with earthquakes had shown that reconstruction in a historical center can take 5–10 years, and sometimes longer, which creates a difficult situation for the affected population. While L’Aquila is in a cold mountainous area, the earthquake occurred in April, the beginning of six months of good weather for construction. This made the option of building comfortable temporary housing much more feasible. Another consideration was that, because there are approximately 15,000 students seeking housing in L’Aquila every year, the temporary apartments could eventually be reused as student dormitories.

Government approved the temporary apartments project, called Progetto C.A.S.E (Complesi Antisismici Sostenibili ed Ecocompatibili or Antiseismic, Sustainable, and Ecofriendly [housing] Complexes), at a cost of 700 million euro (US$929 million). The aim was to build energy-efficient, seismically sound temporary apartments in 3-story buildings. A total of 16 firms won design contracts. The new houses needed to be available within six months and to have expected useful lives similar to normal houses. While different designers used different materials (timber, steel, or concrete), all the units were prefabricated and had to meet a rigid time completion schedule. The design criteria and construction process were planned to allow this accelerated construction schedule.

The foundations of the houses are composed of a double platform: the lower one is a foundation plate that rests directly on the ground, and the upper platform lies on more than 7,000 seismic isolators mounted on steel columns fixed at the foundation plates. The design drastically reduces seismic forces and makes the buildings almost completely earthquake-resistant. The covered area between the two plates is designed for underground parking. Besides paying for Progetto C.A.S.E., government is covering the repair costs, including seismic retrofitting, of all permanent housing.

Source: Prof. Mauro Dolce, General Director of Seismic Emergency Unit, Italian Civil Protection, 2009, personal communication.

International Recovery Platform (IRP) identifies gaps and constraints in disaster recovery and serves as a catalyst for the development of tools, resources, and capacity for resilient recovery. IRP has a range of resources that address reducing risks in recovery. http://www.recoveryplatform.org.

Lloyd-Jones, Tony. 2006. Mind the Gap! Post-Disaster Reconstruction and the Transition from Humanitarian Relief. London: Max Lock Centre at the University of Westminster. http://www.rics.org/site/scripts/download_info.
aspx?downloadID=1979.

ProVention Consortium seeks to reduce the risk and social, economic, and environmental impacts of natural hazards on vulnerable populations in developing countries in order to alleviate poverty and to contribute to sustainable development. Excellent guidelines on earthquake recovery management. http://www.proventionconsortium.org.

UN-HABITAT promotes socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities and adequate shelter for all. Its disaster management program helps governments and local authorities rebuild from war or natural disasters. http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=286.

United Nations Development Programme Crisis Prevention and Recovery (UNDPCPR) works around the world to restore the quality of life for people who have been devastated by natural disaster or violent conflict. http://www.undp.org/cpr/.

United Nations Development Programme. "Preliminary Post-Disaster Recovery Guidelines." http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/social_analysis/UNDP_Recovery_Guidelines.pdf.

United Nations Development Programme. "Guidance Note on Early Recovery." 2007. http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/clusters%20pages/Early%20R/ER_Internet.pdf.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA). 2010. Shelter after Disaster: Strategies for Transitional Settlement and Reconstruction. Geneva: UN OCHA. http://www.sheltercentre.org/library/Shelter+After+Disaster.

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has extensive resources on disaster preparation and response and on training of local officials. http://www.fema.gov.

 ^Return to Top^