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.