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.
