3 things I learned from Shelter Cluster Coordination

I just completed my mission as Provincial Shelter sub-Cluster Hub-Coordinator this December 2019.

It was 11 months working closely with the Government and with 70 NGO partners who are working providing and supporting temporary shelter and permanent housing. Interestingly there were also organizations which not working for shelter nor construction but actively participate in the coordination meeting. Moreover they also participated in the project together with some of the shelter NGOs.

In the areas which affected by tsunami, liquefaction and earthquake we encourage people centered housing recovery with owner driven setting . Through many ways we sent essential message in recovery, Build Back Safer (BBS). Lastly we pursued localisation to ensure local NGOs confidently step-in as key partner.

Therefore in this writing, from my own reflection, I want to share 3 things I learned during my mission in Central Sulawesi.

1 . Know Your Mission

Having a complete understanding of the mission is critical in order we can coordinate effort as humanitarian shelter agencies. Agencies should be proactive bolstering people's rights on their own recovery pathways. For instance in the first months our advocacy was – if the affected people need temporary shelter – all stakeholder should strengthen individual temporary shelter assistance. There was a debate on which temporary shelter is more appropriate, collective (barracks) or individual. Later on it is proven that the individual is much better. Even the individual temporary shelter built through process which took time but it was respecting community decision. On the other hand the collective temporary shelter, delivered as a product it seems disconnected with the recipient and their community. Furthermore there were protection issues, sustainability and also the cost is very expensive.

Other aspect that we continuously pursue is BBS. To make it successful the BBS should be everyone concern and embedded in everyone’s program. The coordination team and some of the partners who are in the strategic advisory group formulate the key messages on safer construction. It was quite challenging for engineers and architects to formulate the message since it should be easily understood by non-engineering people. Even more it should be easily understood by low educated people.

Finally the BBS messaging called 7 Principles to Build Safer House after 4 months was launched, received endorsement from government. The IEC material of 7 Principles to Build Safer House can be downloaded here for portrait layout and landscape layout.

Working in recovery post-disaster will always find a lot of noise. Political actors might want to push their political agenda because they want to be recognized and get the vote. Business people and building contractors who want to gain massive profits for their services and products. Affected people who become impatient due to long process to the recovery. And many more!  But with solid understanding about the mission, we can focus to help the people on their recovery. It will take some time, but it helps the people decide their recovery pathway. At the same time they would have safer rebuild.

2 . Coordination Skill + Creativity = More Influence

We conducted a study to evaluate 3 months coordination meeting participants in September – November 2019. There were 50 organizations participated but interestingly only less than half were working with temporary shelter and permanent housing. The bigger part were those who do not work for shelter nor construction. They work for other program such as cash and livelihood, also local organization who work for women and children protection and land issues. These non-shelter NGOs not only active in coordination meeting but also involved in projects together with shelter NGOs.

We tried to understand why non-shelter NGOs participated in coordination meeting? Also, why number of participant has kept growing? NGO partners found the information shared in the coordination meeting were reliable. The coordination meeting consistently held every two weeks[i]. The meetings were not merely for information sharing but also to find partners. There were INGOs and donor came to find local NGOs who could possibly become partners.

Not only coordination meeting, the NGO partners also strengthen their collaboration through projects. There were two projects carried out by NGO partners. The first was the commemoration of one year event of the disaster. The event was intended to send message on people centered housing recovery. In the event, NGO partners presented their program to support the community with owner-driven approach.

The last collaboration was this December 2019, there were 23 organizations supporting this event. During December, the NGOs conducted house owner training which all trainee were women. Our intention was the women might have BBS knowledge and familiar with the construction monitoring tools. Then with confidence, lead the construction of their houses. The event named ‘Women are the pioneer of reconstruction’ gained support from the Sigi District Government[ii]. The government will continue the house owner training for women using government budget. They invite NGOs participation to support government program as they need technical people and community mobilizers.

None of these two events were planned by each NGO partners at the first place. Even though they were willingly to contribute according to their resources. Some of them sent their engineers, architects and community mobilizers. They also donate construction material for practical training and also gave the funding. Why then, they were willing to collaborate which actually gave more burden to their resources and budget?

From my reflection every agencies who participated in the coordination meeting later on have the same concern. We want to respect owner-driven recovery and at the same time ensure BBS can be achieved. These messages were kept on sounding in many ways during the coordination. It need skills and creativity to gather everyone to fulfill the mission.

3 . To serve and to inspire are beyond leadership

How significant is leadership to run coordination? From my own reflection there are other elements which are more crucial than leadership. My role as coordinator is more to serve and if I am lucky I can inspire the partners. It is important for the partners understand the mission and later on they could create the momentum fulfilling the mission.

For instance once I shared that women can lead the construction of their own houses. They should have the ability to decide what kind of house they want to rebuild. They can choose the design, select the building material, and control the pace but the most important is ensure BBS. I told to some of the partners that we need home owner training for women and there should be big event to launch the idea. Then Danni Rossa from Wahana Visi Indonesia stepped in.

Danni with her team consist of technical people from several NGOs designed the curriculum. They designed homeowner training in 5 villages as pilot project. It was a big effort. She had to coordinate 23 organizations to select locations, trainers and logistics including construction material provision. Through community mobilization the team had to gather women as trainees. Around 150 women had received 2 days training on BBS and construction monitoring. Later on at the ‘Women are the pioneer of reconstruction’ event we knew the home owner training was successful. As I wrote above the District Government will continue to run home owner training program for women.

This writing will be too long, if I have to write other person like Danni who understood the mission then willingly took part. They were not just participated but led other people to fulfil the mission. I am grateful that we have Danni and other partners who can multiply our effort. As we know we always have short timeframe compare to the full recovery, but we need to set the solid foundation. Therefore I am gladly served these leaders.

Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to Direktorat Jenderal Perlindungan dan Jaminan Sosial – Kementerian Sosial Republik Indonesia, Pemerintah Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah and Dinas Sosial Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah. My sincere thanks to 70 NGO partners who are closely working with us, supporting us with update on temporary shelters and permanent housing progress. I am also grateful to other NGO partners even not working with shelter but help us to cover many issues and strengthen shelter program. Their support and collaboration are beyond my expectation. Thanks to my colleagues at IFRC and Global Shelter Cluster. I am thankful for the huge support of my colleagues at the Indonesia National Sub-Cluster Shelter, Wahyu Widayanto, Dave Hodgkin, Avianto Amri, Hijaz Jalil, Daris Rafi Fauzan, Darisman and Oko Jiwa Jiny. My thanks to the most awesome team whom I shared my day to day work in Palu, Tina Lamaligi, Hendri Guswanto, Johanes Juliasman and Punjung Widodo. Thanks to my beloved Linda Tobing for the love and encouragement. And above all to my Lord Jesus Christ, whom all glory belongs.

Arwin Soelaksono

---

[i] Before the meeting we always share the updated partners’ progress from Information Management (IM). We presented gaps and opportunities from each sub-district. From the IM we also share potential of overlap which every agencies need to be cautious and check their plan. We also had conducted mediation for partners whose working area were overlapped.

[ii] https://kabarluwuk.com/2019/12/23/ibu-pelopor-konstruksi-berdayakan-perempuan-bermitigasi/

People centered housing recovery for comprehensive recovery post-disaster

As house rebuild is the most needed by the disaster affected families whose houses are damaged, house reconstruction become the most captivating topic of recovery. The bigger number of house damage, the pressure for quick rebuild also increase. During the decade it was already proven that people centered housing recovery is the best solution for comprehensive recovery. Moreover community involvement might increase the impact of recovery initiative.

Growing pressure leads to quick solution

The toughest argument of people centered housing recovery is the process is to slow. The obstacle is considerable since there is insufficient capacity of affected people on rebuilding their houses. They might lost their livelihood, therefore their saving would not sufficient for house rebuild. To those who have sufficient saving they might repair or rebuild their houses but for many of affected people they might have conflicting priorities. Their priority is how they daily needs are met. In many events, housing recovery cannot be seen in a short time frame. Therefore setting a recovery program around time might lead to failure.

Market and livelihood both are also affected by disaster. The supply chain and economic system are disrupted. The impact of this condition is more severe if the affected area are in rural sites. There are transportation challenges as bridges or roads were damaged. In many events, earthquake in rainy season might cause landslide. Such as in Nepal following the 2015 earthquake, the roads blocked due to landslide during monsoon[i]. Therefore the construction material prices would increase due to limited transportation.  

The problem continues to grow even more complicated if the local government does not have clear plan on housing recovery. Housing reconstruction is an essential element on the recovery but both strategy and policy are seldom can be found in the contingency plan. This missing part would give way to noise which come from political agenda. As disaster situations always useful for publicity seekers, political elites might use it for making political capital[ii]. It happens worldwide not unique to a particular country.

Over the time, combination of those three above becoming more intricate. The needs of affected people, market still not fully functional and political pressures might leads recovery initiatives to wrong direction. The government might give quick solution but overlook to get buy-in from the affected people.

Dilemma between rapid recovery process and actual people need

It is proven that construction using modular system is faster than using conventional system. Modular or prefabricated construction has gradually replacing the traditional on-site construction due to the benefits provided, notably faster time, reduced costs, better work quality, and less environmental impacts. Prefabricated construction guaranties more control over the quality of components and safety of the construction.[iii]

Government support the earthquake affected people in Lombok, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia with cash grant to build house through contractors. The contractors provide concrete fabricated columns and skilled labors to construct the houses. The contractor also deliver bricks and other materials. The houses design is uniform to all beneficiaries. But this initiative is not fully accepted by some affected people. Those who are still traumatic with bricks and concrete which collapsed during the earthquake, they are asking for different structure such as timber and bamboo.[iv]  To those who are still in government scheme, still have to top up with their saving since the cash grant is not sufficient to complete a house. The problem then the cost would increase due to high demand. Now they are worry since the contractor have more control on price setting.[v]

The idea is to speed up the reconstruction process should be appreciated but there are missing pieces should not to be overlooked. We have to realize that affected people have their own plan. Disaster will not undermine their ability to recover and on the other hand they know their limitation. The community should be consulted from the earliest phase of recovery of what is their perception on recovery path. They need support for sure but what kind of support would be the best for them. For those who have land title they would rebuild their houses[vi]. Then what kind of house they want to build; their answer will be many according to family size, land typology and their construction material preference. Therefore there will not be one solution fits for all.

Since in every disaster event there will be political pressure, the noise should be reduced. The government should have housing recovery strategy beforehand. The strategy document will be a reference which can communicate government plan clearly to the affected people, potential donors and humanitarian organizations. The spirit of the recovery plan is to put the affected people at the center. It is important to get community participation to develop a permanent housing recovery plan based on two ideas. The unique needs of the residents and the natural hazards they may experience[vii]. It is more important than build back safer as people centered housing recovery could represent a more detailed way to consider the varied aspects of housing recovery projects. [viii]

The recovery plan should promote housing owner driven reconstruction post-disaster. The homeowner should participate since the early stage of the project. There are important decisions to make, for instance house designs, choice of technologies and procedures.[ix] Then the role of local government, donor agencies and humanitarian organizations could provide support for proper funding mechanism and safer construction.

Beyond the house build

Then if people already at the center of housing recovery is the speed of recovery can be improved? Actually there is no guarantee that people centered housing recovery can make the recovery faster. But there are several things which lead to comprehensive recovery are noticeable. Since the house owner take the lead, there will be no rejection as it happened in Lombok. They choose the design, type of material and also the construction pace. It helps the local business since local builders will use mostly local material. This construction work can give multiplier effect for other economic activity in the area. More job and new business are open, which all of these are to fill the demand from the construction work.

Since the construction will use technology which quite familiar to the local builders, there is no need to bring builders from outside. But local builders still need external support to improve their skills to meet the build back safer requirement. In this part, government and humanitarian agencies can provide funding and technical assistance. Local builders need to be trained properly and continuous monitoring for sometime to develop their skills. It takes time but it is part of the process to change the old practices to the new custom on constructing safer structure.

Arwin Soelaksono

---

[i] McAdoo, Brian G. & Quak, Michelle & Gnyawali, Kaushal & Adhikari, B & Devkota, Sanjaya & Lal Rajbhandari, Purna & Sudmeier-Rieux, Karen. (2018). Roads and landslides in Nepal: How development affects environmental

[ii] Bose B.P.C., The Politics of Disasters, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 55, No. 2, 1994

[iii] Molavi, Jeffrey and Barral, Drew L. A. Construction Procurement Method to Achieve Sustainability in Modular Construction, Procedia Engineering 145 ( 2016 ) 1362 – 1369, 2016

[iv] Trauma Rumah Beton, Sebagian Korban Tolak RISHA https://radarlombok.co.id/trauma-rumah-beton-sebagian-korban-tolak-risha.html   . Accessed June 16, 2019.

[v] Pembangunan risha di lombok barat terkendala bahan. https://mataram.antaranews.com/berita/38552/pembangunan-risha-di-lombok-barat-terkendala-bahan .

[vi] This article is not cover those who do not have legal land that they can build house upon.

[vii] Cantrell, Randall A. et.al. Pre-Disaster Planning for Permanent Housing Recovery VOLUME 2: Planning Strategy. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. 2012.

[viii] Maly, Elizabeth. Rethinking “Build Back Better” in housing reconstruction: A proposal for “People Centered Housing Recovery”. 2016

[ix] Lyons, Michael; Schilderman, Theo; Boano, Camillo. Building Back Better: Delivering People-centred Housing Reconstruction at Scale. 2010

Community driven temporary shelter

On May 16, 2019; 5 unit of barracks which consist 60 rooms was locked and sealed by the contractor[i]. The barracks were temporary shelters for earthquake affected families. That was the last attempt of the contractor to bring higher attention so they can get paid. Photos of families who were made to leave their spaces in the barracks swarmed social media. Those photos raised lots of questions. Were the contractor have the right to do that? Has the authority forgotten that near to the festive the contractor badly need to be paid? Or is there better approach on providing temporary shelter following the disaster?

Following the September 2018 earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia; government and non-government organizations (NGO) supporting the affected people with temporary shelters. There were various design, size and construction material used to build the temporary shelters. But there were two significant difference in terms of building typology. There were barracks or collective temporary shelters and the other are individual temporary shelter. Individual temporary shelter is for one family while collective temporary shelters or barrack are for several families in one structure.

Which one is better, collective or individual

There are always questions on which one is the best for protecting displaced people. People might argue that collective shelters are faster than constructing the individual one. To some extent it is true. But actually the difference is not much. Collective shelters built by contractors it has procurement process and bidding and awarding. If a constructing company awarded the contract they have to manage sub-contractors or labors and procure construction material. Procurement is proven to be problematic as shown on protest due to unpaid claim. On the other hand individual temporary shelter is more on community or home-owner driven. People build their own temporary shelter and dwell in it after constructed.

The outcome is important which is people need to reside in the while waiting to rebuild their houses. Therefore construction collective shelter and individual shelter should be measured until the beneficiaries live in it. There were empty collective temporary shelters due to no water and electricity. The affected people rejected to stay since those are basic needs for them to live. On the other hand individual temporary shelters which built on their own land, already have water, toilet and electricity.

In terms of cost which one is more expensive? For in-situ construction, the individual temporary shelters are much more economical. The homeowner might use the salvage material. Since they build based on their needs such as adding more rooms they have use their own money. Since the NGOs which are supporting them only give some money or construction material which is not sufficient for completion. Individual and collective temporary shelter can be built upon relocation area. But the cost of individual temporary shelter is still more economical compare to the collective shelters. Even in relocation area the individual shelter owner need to use their own money to complete their house in order to build it as per their need. While in collective shelters the contactors built it and in their cost are profit in it. Which is proven to be expensive.

But the most crucial are on the protection side. For families living in collective temporary shelter only a thin wall made of plywood separate one family to the other. There are social concern might increase frustration amongst this neighborhood. Then protection for women and children become the biggest concern since they have to live cramped in small area including using communal bathrooms. The bigger number of people live in collective shelter compound the bigger the issues need to be addressed.

Therefore provision of collective temporary shelter should be seen as the last option when there is no possible way on providing the individual.[ii]

The missing part, self-recovery

Even in the most difficult situation, people has the intention to survive. It is the nature as human being to preserve their life. In terms of recovery post disaster, some capacities still persist. They have their own decision how to do to survive and continue their live. The bigger their capacities, they are more confidence to decide their path to recovery. Therefore on the first assessment after disaster struck capacities on self-recovery should be studied.

Access to financial resources is one to determine their capacities. It could be from saving or financial support from extended family. Their access to financial services such as loan would also help them to recover faster. Other capacity originates from market system which still function. People can buy construction material and tools, even their supply might need some time to match the demand. If in the area they have local production of construction material the market function is more positive. Even more encouraging if there are local builders such as masons and carpenters. They could repair houses in no time or immediately build the temporary shelters.

But most important is their social cohesiveness. The community itself will decide what will be the best for them. It is far more important than all resources mentioned above. Therefore the decision on provision of temporary shelter should come from the affected people. The capacity to self-recover should be taken into consideration.

The decision on provision of collective temporary shelter can be perceived as delivering a product[iii]. It will undermine their self-recover ability. For this kind of community this approach will not meet their expectation. The community would prefer stay in their own built temporary shelter, and it is individual shelter.

In the shoes of affected people

Decision on providing temporary shelter whether it is collective or individual should come from proper assessment. It should not from previous intervention from other disaster response. Every event is unique, different hazard, different area and different people. Based on learning from previous events, the decision on provision collective temporary shelter become less popular. From the affected people point of view there is considerable risk on protection and too many social issues. From programmatic point of view it is expensive and the occupancy rate might lower than the expectation. 

The idea on provision temporary shelter is the affected people will peacefully dwell while their new permanent house being built. Whether in relocation land or in-situ they need assurance that they are protected. It is if they live in individual temporary shelter.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photos:

Top: Collective temporary shelter at Kelurahan Mamboro, Kecamatan Palu Utara. 

Middle: Individual temporary shelter of KUN-Humanity funded by IMC Worldwide

Bottom: Individual temporary shelter of MDS funded by TEAR Netherland 

________________________________

[i] "Hunian Sementara Korban Bencana Palu Disegel Kontraktor" https://properti.kompas.com/read/2019/05/16/185934821/hunian-sementara-korban-bencana-palu-disegel-kontraktor 

[ii] CARE. Emergency toolkit. Collective Centres. In the first instance after a disaster, a collective centre is likely to be a community building such as a school, church, hall etc. Destitute families will sleep communally, often in very crowded conditions with inadequate privacy and access to water and sanitation. A shelter programme can support these families with NFIs and materials to improve privacy and dignity. However there is often pressure to vacate collective centres as quickly as possible so that they can revert to their original use, classes can commence etc. Collective centres can also be purpose-built, normally by the government. Generally CARE would consider then to be an option of last resort. https://www.careemergencytoolkit.org/core-sectors/25-shelter/4-what-to-do-response-options/

[iii] Kennedy, Jim. Newby, Tom. P. 73. The State of Humanitarian Shelter and Settlements 2018. Global Shelter Cluster. Successful shelter programmes do not just deliver a shelter product; they support a process of sheltering. But the shelter sector still has a way to go to understand this process, not as one of building an object, but as one of responding to the varied needs and aspirations of people and how they choose to live their lives.

Supporting the most vulnerable in owner-driven house reconstruction setting – Lessons learned from Nepal

On every houses reconstruction post-disaster there is always challenging situation where there are some people will potentially left behind. The most difficult to assist are those who are the landless or those whom will be relocated. Their timeline and reconstruction cost will be much higher compare to those who are on-site reconstruction. Based on this circumstances both landless and relocated will not be discussed in this article. Therefore the scope of discussion are those who will rebuild their houses in their previous land or upon their own land. Even though there are families with economic vulnerability, whom struggling to fulfill their daily needs. There are also families without workforce, the old people and people with disabilities which made them have no confidence to rebuild their houses. When the government launch the recovery program across the affected area these people most probably will only wait for the right time to start but soon will they realize it is already late. These people are based on common criteria[i] known as the most vulnerable.

But there is always possibility on supporting the most vulnerable families to rebuild their houses. Even most of them don’t have confidence that they might even start the construction. There are many question on their capability to rebuild their houses in owner-driven setting. To answer the question, firstly we need to understand how they perceive their limitation and perception on reconstruction.

Different timeline

The most vulnerable families have different timeline on rebuilding their houses. They might think for months to have decision to ground-breaking. They might worry once they start and then they could not finish it. For instance, in Nepal one room house can be completed within 2 months or even less. But for most vulnerable families might take a year to complete. Nepal government provide cash assistance for all eligible beneficiaries to rebuild their houses in 4 tranches. For those who can afford to buy construction material or pay the labor they can use their own resource to keep the construction going. But not with the most vulnerable, which they can only work when they have the cash assistance on their hand. It happened many times there were time lag which made them to wait[ii].

Therefore since we know that the most vulnerable need more time to rebuild their houses, the support should be start earlier. Whatever the support to them such as the top up or other assistance should be started sooner. The recovery assessment should identify the most vulnerable and work at the earliest to get buy-in from their own community and local government.

Start the ball rolling

My first question when we conducted the assessment 3 months after the earthquake who will do the land clearing when we visited old people. They seems did not have man power for land clearing. The access also difficult to bring the material to their houses. If the job should be done by labor, they don’t have money to pay the wages. They stuck in this condition and need external support from government or humanitarian organization. This external support needed to start the ball rolling.

There are various ways on supporting the most vulnerable that they might kick-start the rebuilding. There was cash top up as per government plan to support the most vulnerable. Some organization using the local custom to gather several homeowners to form a group to build their houses. They started from one house then to another house as they agreed. It went well since it is traditional practice, but it takes time. They need to finish one house at certain stage then to move to other houses. It take even longer time due to seasonal work in the village[iii]. Some organizations provide construction assistance through training for builders. The training was started from land clearing until the house completed. The homeowners just provide the material. The builders get the benefit of experience to work on complete construction; on the other hand, the beneficiaries’ also get the benefit since they have their houses constructed in good quality. It went well but the number of beneficiaries not so many.

After several studies and discussion with several organizations in the HRRP[iv], the most effective support was provision of mobile mason. Mobile mason is providing a group of mason who works up to certain level of construction. The masons will clear the land and dig foundation. They will work to construction of the foundation until the foundation beams are concreted. Up to this level the beneficiaries are entitled to get the cash disbursement which is the largest tranches of government scheme. Once the ball rolling they will continue to finish their houses. This intervention was the most efficient since it took only a week[v]. Also it is cost effective since the beneficiaries can provide their salvage material to be used for construction of foundation. They only need to purchase steel rebar and cement for the foundation beam. For the organization who support the most vulnerable this is also cost efficient since they have to pay labor for a week to finish the work. But the organization have to provide construction expert to provide technical assistance to the homeowners and the builders.

Therefore the most vulnerable people will have their capacity. The government and the humanitarian organizations need to break their limitation by providing accurate support. We need to respect their time line and at the same time help them to build their confidence and to kick-start  their house construction.

Arwin Soelaksono

---

[i] Every organization have their own criteria which based on their organization mission. The criteria might be old people, people with disabilities, single headed women, family with children, food security etc.

[ii] There is a process that they can receive the cash after at certain stages their construction work can be verified based on quality checklist. After the verification there will be several steps in local government process to ensure eligibility and correct amount to be disbursed. These process always take time and in some area it might take longer due to local capacity.

[iii] There were planting and harvesting and also festivals. There were also monsoons which hamper the transportation due to landslides.

[iv] The Housing Recovery and Reconstruction Platform (HRRP) is the organization who provides coordination services for the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA), Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) and Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD) Central Level Programme Implementation Units (CL-PIUs), other relevant government authorities, and Partner Organizations (POs).

[v] The American Red Cross in March 2017, supported 7 families by providing mobile mason in Thulogaun. The support was from land clearing to the completion of the foundation. Therefore the beneficiaries can proceed to obtain the second tranche cash grant which is the largest chunk of government support. It took around 7 months up to  a year for them to complete their houses.