kyoto university graduate school of global environmental studies community based recovery process:...

Kyoto University Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

Community Based Recovery Process: Lessons and Challenges

Rajib ShawAssociate Professor Graduate School of Global

Environmental Studies, Kyoto University

E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp/


Overview of PresentationKey Community Based Recovery Lessons

• Role of People and Communities: Kobe Earthquake of 1995, Japan

• Community Based Planning and Institutionalizing Lessons from Recovery Process: Gujarat Earthquake of 2001, India

• Participatory Housing Reconstruction: Indian Ocean Tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia, 2004, Yogyakarta Earthquake 2006: Indonesia


Kobe Earthquake 17th January 1995

• Major disaster in a high density urban area• No previous record of earthquake in the region

– Low preparedness in people and government • High concentration of old wooden houses

– Widespread fire in certain locations– Casualty in certain age groups

• Demography of the region affected the rescue and relief work


Neighbors As the First Respondents


Volunteer Activities• 1995: Year Zero of the New Era of Voluntary Activities and

Civil Society


Roles of Voluntary Organizations


Kobe Action Plan


• Emergence of future civil society

• Cooperation of people, NGOs and governments

Emergence of Civil Society


Key Lesson from Kobe Earthquake • People and Communities as key for recovery

process – Self-reliance and self-support – Understand, Assess and Build on existing social capital – Enhanced civil society initiatives


Key Earthquake Issues

• Vulnerability Atlas of India: Earthquake Hazard Map– Earthquake hit area is in the

most hazard prone are in the seismic hazard map of India

– Knowledge about the risk of the area

• Building Codes of India– Building codes for engineered

buildings and guidelines for non-engineered buildings exist

Gap between knowledge and practice

India Gujarat Earthquake 2001


Urban Less Engineered ?


Rural Housing and Schools


Disaster as a Development Opportunity

Not just rebuilding houses, but rebuilding lives

PNY

Housing Recovery

Safer Construction

Training & Demonstration

Masons Training

Shake Table Tests

Habitat RecoveryWater

ManagementLivelihood Security

Health & Education

Improving Living Condition

Interventions at Community Level

Civil Society/ NGOLocal Government

Researchers/ PractitionersInternational Agencies


• Step 1: Community Assessment: Prioritizing NEEDS

• Step 2: Community Planning: Developing Action Plans

• Step 3: Community Actions: Implementing specific actions

Habitat Planning: Improving Living Condition


Housing Reconstruction: Process Focused

Ownership is the key issue: Involvement of House owner and Family


Housing Reconstruction: Confidence Building


Trained Masons: What Next ?• Sustainability• Development Needs• Livelihoods

SEEDS Mason Association (SMA)

Housing Reconstruction: Institutionalizing

• Improving livelihoods: enhancing job security• Recognition and brand name: creating market• Partnership of Government, NGO, Corporate Sectors: ensuring sustainability


Key Lessons: Gujarat Earthquake

• Information management as the key of the informed decision making – District, village link/ Link to the

professional societies/ Link to NGO activities

– Link to other hazards (drought, flooding)

• Planning and training should go hand-in-hand

• Institutionalize knowledge base should be part of the recovery policy from the very beginning


Indian Ocean Tsunami and Yogyakarta Earthquake

Date： 26 December 2004Magnitude： 9.0Location： Sea coast widely spreadDeath: 130,000 people diedHousing Damage: 130,000 need new houseLocal Characteristics: Conflict areaBRR is newly establishedDisaster Claimed: International Disaster

North Sumatra and Indian Ocean Tsunami (Aceh)

Central Java Earthquake (Yogyakarta)

Date： 27 May 2006Magnitude： 5.9Location： Large damage but concentratedDeath: 5,700 people diedHousing Damage: 157,000 houses destroyedLocal Characteristics: Poor agricultural regionTraditional Culture (Gotong Royong)Strong Local Government (Sultan)Disaster Claimed:National Disaster


Diagram of Different Actors and Contribution

Assessment

Policy and Guideline

Grouping

Guidance and permission

Quality control

Assessment

Training of Facilitator

Organization Process

Quality control

Technical Support

Budgeting

Project formulation

Socio-cultural concern

Cost

Management

Quality

Time

Quality controlPlanning

Community

National Government

Contribution

Facilitation

Coordination

Construction

Prioritizationof activity

Flexibility of Planning

Contractor baseParticipation

Locality

Cooperative responsibility

Levels of participation

Coordination

Local Government

Facilitator

Aid organization

InterrelationshipImplementation activities


Project Process1. Community Organization

Community Organizing

Formation of Community

Working Group

2. Community Plan

Community Self Survey

Group Implementation

Plan

4. Administration Preparation

Opening ofGroup Bank

Account

Sign of CSP &Housing Grant

Application

5. Implementation

Construction Activity

Land Titling

6. Evaluation

Evaluation of Constructed

Houses

Community Settlement

Plan

1 day to a few days 1 week to a few months

A few weeks1 month to several months1 day

1. Community Organization

Community Organizing

Formation of Community

Working Group

2. Community Plan

Community Self Survey

Group Implementation

Plan

4. Administration Preparation

Opening ofGroup Bank

Account

Sign of CSP &Housing Grant

Application

5. Implementation

Construction Activity

Land Titling

6. Evaluation

Evaluation of Constructed

Houses

Community Settlement

Plan

1 day to a few days 1 week to a few months

A few weeks1 month to several months1 day


Effectiveness of Community based recovery

Government’s initiative Damage of disaster Existing community ties and historical and social background of community

Factor Item Aceh Yogyakarta

Time/Speed • Project formulation• Organizational structure

Fair

(Slow but average)

Good

(Fast)

Quality (Technical/Safety)

• Housing facilitator• Process management• Other facilitator

Fair

(Limited experience)

Good

(Experienced staff)

Socio-cultural concern

• Project process• Participation in process• Social facilitator

Fair/Good(community needs

is considered)

Good(community

needs is considered)

Cost • Unit cost of house• Government policy• People’s participation in construction

Fair

(High)

Good

(Low)

Management • Housing facilitator• Organizational structure

Fair

（ Functioned but experience limited)

Good

(Functioned)

Influencing factor


Key Lessons and Issues• Establishing the Context: Build on existing social capital and community ties:

Lessons from Kobe Earthquake of 1995, Japan – Develop a system to evaluate social capital

• Planning and Institutionalizing: Appropriate habitat planning: habitat (house), health, livelihood: Gujarat Earthquake of 2001, India

– Provide confidence in local knowledge and technology – Information management as the key for informed decision making– Institutionalize knowledge base

• Collective Implementation: Participatory housing recovery: Indian Ocean Tsunami, Aceh, 2004 and Yogyakarta Earthquake 2006, Indonesia

– Training of Facilitators (Technical and Social)– Synergy of Community Based Monitoring System and Independent Technical Audit – Balance of cost, speed, quality, management and socio-cultural dimension

kyoto university graduate school of global environmental studies community based recovery process:...

Documents