No one left behind in house reconstruction post-disaster in owner-driven setting

The need for recovery is always our human nature once people recover after shock following the natural disaster. Natural disasters are generally considered as a coincidence between natural hazards (such as flood, cyclone, earthquake and drought) and conditions of vulnerability.[i] But how fast and to what extent the recovery outcome might be different for each affected people. To those who have sufficient resources and capacities they might bounce back within certain times. But to those who unfortunately live in vulnerable condition they might feel helpless. There is a high risk of disaster when one or more natural hazards occur in a vulnerable situation.[ii] For vulnerable people, other than food, medical and other item which needed to continue for their survival, the need of having safe shelter are also crucial. Particularly in owner-driven setting, this might be a big challenge to those who are most vulnerable due to build a robust and safe structure are considerably expensive.

More on the vulnerability issues, people with certain social characteristics are more likely than others to be affected by lack of access and lack of resources. Other type of vulnerability also can be seen at the effects of age (very young and very old), gender (including complications of pregnancy), and disability[iii]. For these people even to access their livelihood has already quite challenging. As they might perceived the shelter is beyond their capacities, therefore fulfilling their basic needs such as food become the only thing they could pursue.

76 yrs Jhulmaya Gurung at Thulagoun VDC #Nepal crushes stone making gravel for concrete structure for her house #Shelter #rebuild @RedCross pic.twitter.com/S0jnKA77zd

— Arwin Soelaksono (@arwinsoelaksono) November 18, 2016

The most vulnerable on house rebuilding – they are at risk of being left behind

Further discussion among the government and humanitarian agencies is to what extent the most vulnerable people might get help on house rebuilding. Because their self-capacity – even might be very small – could not be undermined. They might have relatives who are willing to support. Or there are some salvage material still can be used from the ruined house. But to give similar support as other affected people received from recovery program might not be effective. Their ability to fit in the recovery program is far below from their neighborhood.

Other factor that those vulnerable people still have capacity is they still have neighbors which might help them. The community contribute their resource such as construction material or labor to support their neighbor. This is social capital might vary. Stronger social capital might ensure there will be no-one left behind on rebuilding their houses. But depend only on social capital still not adequate. Social capital helps groups to overcome collective action problems, but there is no guarantee that in doing so they will produce public goods available to people outside that group.[iv]

For vulnerable people having a safe land to build their houses has already quite challenging even before the disaster. Other than the land rights issues they might live in vulnerable land. Landslide prone, riverbanks which disaster might occur at any time or season. Their economic condition hampers them to own land with safe environment.

Even they have safe land to rebuild their house they have to compete with their neighbors when the government launch the recovery program. Tens or even hundreds of thousands houses will be rebuild in certain period of recovery. After a large-scale disaster, housing reconstruction projects are susceptible to numerous resource bottlenecks inherent in post-disaster circumstances, such as a lack of suitable resources and alternatives[v]. The vulnerable families will have to wait since the builders will prioritize them who can pay them according to the market wage. If the time to wait might be prolonged other imminent problem is the inflation. The inflation is very common due to supply and demand, the longer the reconstruction period the prices tend to increase. This is due to a great amount of money pour in this construction sector and for many people increase their purchasing power.

Supporting the most vulnerable for house reconstruction

Even there are some weaknesses on social capital but still social capital is highly influential for how much and how fast societies are able to recover, rebuild, and sometimes even improve after having been hit by a disaster.[vi] Since the vulnerable families live in the community most possible of the support is from within. In some cases support from the neighbors is needed if there is external assistance from the government or humanitarian agencies. Their support are any means that might increase their access in recovery program. For instance more affordable construction material which usually come as discounted price. Since this kind of support might be limited, therefore support from the community is needed since this kind of assistance should be agreed for only the most vulnerable families. 

The government should take lead on helping the most vulnerable. The government obviously develop the policy and strategy on recovery but supporting the most vulnerable should be clearly mentioned. The policy might open access for humanitarian or development agencies to support the most vulnerable. From this policy the agencies can provide various direct intervention such as technical assistance or cash grant as additional to the government support. These assistance should be perceived as closing the gaps as the most vulnerable might be left out. Reconstruction processes should be considered as a redevelopment opportunity, with environment protection a priority on the sustainability agenda.[vii]

Helping the most vulnerable should be the call for humanitarian agencies. The effectiveness mostly depends on the resources are available within the organization. This kind of assistance needs special skills from the design until the implementation. The program should be designed to match and complement the government plan. Specifically for house reconstruction understand of adaptable construction technology is the key of successful implementation. The recovery program should maximize local resources, the construction material, equipment and builders. The implementation should abide with the code but still open to new practices as long as scientifically approved. Therefore within the organization there should be qualified team to handle this responsibility.      

Arwin Soelaksono

---

[i] Maskrey, A., Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach.  Development Guidelines No. 3.  Oxfam, Oxford (1989).

[ii] Maskrey, A., (1989).

[iii] Wisner, Ben. Marginality and vulnerability. Why the homeless of Tokyo don’t ‘count’ in disaster preparations. (1998)

[iv] Aldrich, Daniel P. Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery. (2012).

[v] Chang, Yan, et.al. An integrated approach: managing resources for post-disaster reconstruction. (2011).

[vi] Aldrich, Daniel P. (2012)

[vii] Chang, Yan. (2011).

Psychological milestones of house reconstruction post-disaster

Owner driven reconstruction approach has been introduced following Gujarat earthquake in 2001.[i] Striking difference with reconstruction post Asian tsunami 2004, the survivors has to rebuild their own houses. They have to put their own money and other resources in order to complete their houses. While support from the government or organizations is only some part. In comparison with reconstruction post-tsunami the survivors get completed houses from the government or donors. There are report and studies discussed owner-driven approach are much better compare to the donor driven.[ii] As it is proven to be successful it is important to see this approach from the beneficiaries’ perspective. Particularly their psychological factor which drive them to rebuild and complete their houses.

Building a house - once in a lifetime experience

For many people building a house might be once in a life time. They will put almost all of their savings, months of efforts and sacrifices their other needs in order to have a house. They will wait until the right time to construct their houses according their needs and budget.

Happy with this solid #shelter team (@RedCross , @NepalRedCross & @BuildChange ) - front of one of finished houses - Gogane #Nepal #recovery pic.twitter.com/C2f64hvxUL

— Arwin Soelaksono (@arwinsoelaksono) November 4, 2017

For the disaster survival, there is no such ideal time to rebuild houses. It will always a narrow period of rebuilding otherwise they have to live in temporary shelter or in refuge. The pressure might getting larger to those are economically deprived. The money needed for rebuilding is beyond their capacities even they already sacrifices their needs to have sufficient space. Many of them just build two rooms houses which in fact they need more rooms. The cost of construction is always more expensive compare their common practices. For instance to have robust structure they have to put earthquake resistance attributes in the structure. They have to follow building codes in order the government officers approved their houses and eligible to get the funding assistance. Hence for many people this condition put them in big dilemma. If they choose not to rebuild, they would live in temporary shelter. But if they decide to rebuild they might not finished it due to lack of money.

Psychological barrier

Indeed in the owner driven reconstruction setting, the government provide funding mechanism to support the rebuilding. The homeowners will receive some amount of money from the government or from the donors through the recovery organizations. The amount of money is only some part which usually less than fifty percent of the two rooms house. Therefore the support can be perceived as stimulus to kick start the reconstruction. This kind of support will be given in tranches according to the government procedure.

There are at least two milestones which homeowners experiencing psychological barrier in order could start and then finish the house reconstruction. These barriers located at the particular cash disbursement milestones. The first barrier is after they receive the first tranche. At this first milestone, the cash support is expected to build confidence to do the groundbreaking which later on to finish the foundation. 

In reality the first tranche does not automatically move the homeowners start the reconstruction. Most of them is on wait-and-see their neighbors whether will start or even complete the house. The amount of first tranche definitely is not sufficient to finish the foundation or achieve the next milestone. The homeowner need to use salvage material and inject cash through their own saving or from money lender to achieve next tranche.  

If they can reach the next milestone which is eligible for the second tranche another psychological barrier need to be broken. The second tranche is the biggest amount compare to other tranches. The amount is more than enough to repay all expenses from previous phase. New dilemma arise which made them paused when they realize the amount of money to invest to finance the next construction is even larger. If they want to stop they can save the second tranche money but they will only have house foundation.

In normal condition there are barriers for people to start house construction. National event such as festivals, elections and also local weathers always become consideration. This situation will increase the psychological barrier for the disaster survivors.

Building the confidence

Even there are hindrances, at some but many of homeowners eventually can finish the construction and happily living in their new houses. It does not mean that each of them have sufficient money but their confidence are strengthen during the process.  There are factors which can strengthen their confidence. The first is the continuous flow of the cash support. All homeowners could expect there will be money just in time to finance their construction. Though they realize the cash support is insufficient at some extent they can calculate how much money they need to provide to finish their house.

Other factor is assurance that their undertaking is according to the regulation which made the eligible to obtain the support. Therefore those homeowners who receive technical assistance are more progressing compare to those who have absence of such support. Because in the reconstruction the have to follow build back safer which many of the practices are different with their traditional way. It needs close monitoring and lots of training to the homeowners and the builders.

Building the confidence mostly part of the government responsibility who develop the policies and the systems. It depends on the readiness of government to set up funding and monitoring mechanism and also deploy sufficient engineers for technical support. Other important undertaking is the market stabilization, inflation has almost become the biggest nightmare in reconstruction. All of these are beyond reach of the organizations who support the reconstruction which usually in local level.

There should be better project delivery systems, better mechanism for providing supervision and technical advices, more down-to-earth training and capacity building mechanism as well as smarter financing and incentives system, supported by appropriate technology approaches.[iii]

If all system and support are in place it is fine if the government declare deadline. Recovery agencies always have deadline. Their mandate usually limited in certain time. But during the period of recovery the message is clear that whoever wants to rebuild they might access sufficient support. This condition could boost optimism to beneficiaries personally and also as communal. But if the condition is the other way around which is no sufficient support, the deadline will have no impact. Furthermore the deadline might create apathy and distrusts towards the recovery agencies.

Psychological momentum of house completion

Though the construction process might take a long process but there is one stage that mostly made them complete their houses. When they almost finish the roof beam with the door and window frame installed they will their own pressure to complete their house. They can vividly imagine their new house. They realize there was a lot of money being spent and it would be ashamed if they could not finish their house.

Other encouragement might also come from their neighbors who already finished their houses, particularly to those community with high social cohesiveness. One finished house not only meant as encouragement but sometimes shameful for someone who failed the rebuilding.

Therefore supporting the disaster victim to rebuild house construction should be perceived as an effort of develop their capacities and self-confidence. As this initiative is owner driven setting, they recognize that their preference are respected but they too should be accountable of the risks. For all recovery agencies this undertaking should be perceived as not just giving funding and technical assistance. Moreover to develop their self-ability and find their momentum. It is a marathon not a sprint.    

Arwin Soelaksono

---

[i] Practical Action, London South Bank University, and

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2010), Barenstein, Jennifer Duyne  and Iyengar, Sushma Building Back Better, Delivering people-centred housing reconstruction at scale. India: From a culture of housing to a philosophy of reconstruction.

[ii] Gayani Karunasena, Raufdeen Rameezdeen, (2010) "Post‐disaster housing reconstruction: Comparative study of donor vs owner‐driven approaches", International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 1 Issue: 2, pp.173-191, https://doi.org/10.1108/17595901011056631 Beneficiary satisfaction is higher on owner‐driven approach compared to the donor‐driven approach.

[iii] Pribadi K.S., Kusumastuti D., Sagala S.A.H., Wimbardana R. (2014) Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction in Indonesia: Review and Lessons from Aceh, Yogyakarta, West Java and West Sumatera Earthquakes. In: Shaw R. (eds) Disaster Recovery. Disaster Risk Reduction (Methods, Approaches and Practices). Springer, Tokyo

Reconstruction, a pathway for women to contribute more on sustainable development

Following the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal, the Government of Nepal launched a private housing reconstruction program for the affected people. This is an owner-driven reconstruction in which the homeowners have the initiative on the type and size of the house to be rebuilt and also the timeline. The government provides support as the methodology has already proven successful in other countries, such as Indonesia, following the Padang earthquake in 2009. However, in Nepal, there are some specific concerns about the availability of skilled builders as many young people prefer to work abroad.

Draining of local workforce

For some people, this recovery program is foreseen to be unsuccessful due to the scarcity of manpower to work in reconstruction. For many years, Nepali working abroad has tended to increase as more income they expected compared to working in Nepal. The number of Nepali workers going abroad has more than doubled since the country began promoting foreign labor in recent years: from about 220,000 in 2008 to about 500,000 in 2015[i].

In the villages, the situation is even more challenging. Thousands of able-bodied men leave Nepali villages for cities and go abroad for employment and to escape poverty, many villages no longer have any adult men—only kids, women, and elderly remain[ii]. Therefore, the ratio of women and old people becomes significant if we count the workforce availability in the villages. Even most of the young people are unskilled for construction work. Hence, the presence of women and old people will not have a meaningful impact on the reconstruction progress.

Migration not only reduces manpower but also causes slower decisions on when to start the house. This is because money is mostly directed by the men who are the head of the household.

During the reconstruction phase and especially in temporary shelters, women take on a triple duty of reproductive work, community organisation and productive work in the informal economy, while men tend to return to their traditional role of waged work outside home. The tremendous impact of the disaster on children and elderly are largely shouldered by women. Generally in post disaster situations the officials in charge for reconstruction activities finds it difficult to obtain timely and accurate information. This is partly because of decision making which does not follow its usual procedure due to the urgency and the pressures and flow of information to lower ranks does not work in its routine way. In certain cases the implementation does not happen effectively. Thus, the contribution of women to this will be of great help. (Thurairajah, 2008)

Construction work is not for women - skeptic says

Even in development settings, which is not a post-disaster situation, the presence of women in the construction business is in a small number. Women make up just 11% of the entire workforce, but even this figure includes many who work behind a desk, often in design, management or secretarial roles. On building sites themselves, it is estimated that 99% of workers are men[iii]. The current perception is that this construction is a male-only job, and this comes both from the employers and from society.

During the preparation of the reconstruction program the government launched a mason training programs. But even women have been encourage to participate their presence still below expectation. Their range of participation may vary across the country but some evidence recorded around 5%.[iv]

Limited opportunity and increasing vulnerability

When fulfilling their responsibility as family members, women will have additional burdens due to disaster. They might work to clean out debris and work on their own house repair, but at the same time, they still have to take care of their children and do housework. Their husband might lose their job due to the disaster, which made them have to work for extra income to meet their needs.

If they want to enter the available job market in their villages, they have to compete with their male neighbor who are losing their assets and jobs. These men would work for any kind of work available to get income.

One opportunity for everyone in the village is construction work. The current workforce is definitely not sufficient to meet the demand due to massive reconstruction across the country. As happens everywhere globally, this recovery program may take years. A growing number of skilled builders is really needed in due course; otherwise, this recovery might be halted or even fail.

Even though there is a growing demand for builders and training in which women can participate, it doesn’t mean that women can easily get jobs. Community acceptance is still a serious challenge that hampers women's ability to work directly in construction. Most people still perceive this work with wood, stone, and cement as a men’s job.

Limited access to construction work for women might be linked to limited access to income if there are not sufficient job opportunities in the village. Furthermore, limited purchasing power for basic needs and health. Then, the highest concern is increasing their vulnerability if the woman is a single-headed household with children in her family. The marginalized role of women in post-disaster reconstruction further contributes to women's vulnerability in post-disaster situations[v].

Empowerment of the stairways for more opportunity

Women should have access to participate in any recovery activities, including reconstruction works, as per their needs or interests. Therefore, they should be empowered with skills and knowledge in order to enter the job market with fair competition. The government should provide access and mechanisms in order for them to contribute their skill to rebuild more robust houses in their community. Aside from that disaster as a tragedy, disasters can provide an opportunity to redress gender disparities. Good practices are context-relevant and empowering and use women’s skills and leadership to build resilience and Disaster Risk Reduction. There is a need to improve livelihoods and enhance community disaster preparedness, mitigation, and prevention, with the involvement of women and men[vi].

Therefore, agencies that work in reconstruction should find the best strategy that can be implemented in their working area. Every disaster recovery in each country might be unique, so copying the same strategy from another recovery program does not guarantee success. However, this empowerment initiative should be emphasized in every strategy. Aside from opening new opportunities for women, the strategies themselves will benefit the government, humanitarian organizations, and research institutions working on women’s empowerment[vii].

However, even though there are good policies and good strategies, limited access still persists. The larger share of benefits and resources go to men while women continue to remain marginalized.[viii] Many research prove men still play a dominant role, not only in the decision-making process but also throughout the entire response, reconstruction, and recovery processes[ix]

Therefore, it shows there is still a long way from the policy level to the actual implementation on the field level. There are still conceptions and old values hampering the process, which hampering those empowerment strategies can be active and real. There should be an initiative from the grass-root level to tap the opportunity.

Small steps big impacts

Having a certificate of builder training does not guarantee having a construction job. As mentioned above, the challenge of acceptance still persists. There are already proven initiatives that have made a big impact on the reconstruction progress in Nepal. One of the essential milestones for starting a house construction is land clearing and groundbreaking. Rather than waiting for builders to do the job, a group of women cleared the land, broke the ground, and made the foundation. Having seen that women worked later on, other men in the community joined.

These people work in turn from one house to another so all group members have their foundation finished. In Nepal, it is called aalo palo, or working in turn. It is a very small step, but it brings recognition and appreciation. Women, too, can also work in construction. Time passed, and then they could not only work on land clearing and foundation work but also in steel rebar fixing [photo above] and concreting.

The idea is to make a connection between policy and strategy at the country level and the community at the village level. It should produce a paradigm shift in the community that empowered women can also work in construction if they are willing to do so. Women can fill the manpower gap because many people are working abroad. Moreover, it should not stop at the implementation level. Women should also participate and be involved in decision-making processes in a non-discriminatory manner. They must be fully recognized and supported to build resilience, reduce disaster risks, and contribute to sustainable development[x].

Arwin Soelaksono

---

[i] https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/21/nepalis-die-working-abroad/

[ii]  https://pulitzercenter.org/project/asia-nepal-mass-migration-women-children-rural-poverty

[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/2015/may/19/where-are-all-the-women-why-99-of-construction-site-workers-are-male

[iv] https://reliefweb.int/report/nepal/nepal-earthquake-changing-attitudes-brick-brick

[v] Thurairajah, Nirooja (2013) Empowering Women during Post Disaster Reconstruction

[vi] Drolet, Julie et.al. (2015). Women rebuilding lives post-disaster: innovative community practices for building resilience and promoting sustainable development

[vii] Thurairajah, Nirooja (2013)

[viii] Thurairajah, Nirooja (2013)

[ix] Drolet, Julie et.al. (2015).

[x] Drolet, Julie et.al. (2015).

Our #MondayMotivation is this lady in Rasuwa, #Nepal - age isn't slowing her down, and she's even helping out on her family's post-#NepalQuake home rebuild! 📷 @arwinsoelaksono pic.twitter.com/YNLQqCasiq

— Leela Mulukutla (@LMulukutla) March 26, 2018

So rewarding seeing progress on homes rebuilt under our #Nepal #earthquake recovery efforts - great job @arwinsoelaksono & @widurrr. pic.twitter.com/ZzX3hjP8Gy

— Leela Mulukutla (@LMulukutla) October 15, 2017

Entering new #construction season. #House #rebuild in #Nepal #Postearthquake pic.twitter.com/SzxHeDorML

— Arwin Soelaksono (@arwinsoelaksono) October 13, 2017