Case Study 3: Community information centres support reconstruction in Gujarat
After the 2001 earthquake, Abhiyan, a network of development organisations in Gujarat played a key role
in enabling the State’s owner-driven reconstruction policy to be implemented on the ground. A key concern
of Abhiyan was to mitigate the risk of future disasters, and they were aware that vernacular technologies
and local building knowledge might be unable to achieve resilient reconstruction. In collaboration with
GSDMA, Abhiyan therefore create Setus, a chain of information hubs in clusters of affected villages. This
ensured that people were informed not only about better ways of building, but also about their rights
and entitlements. In addition, training was organised for local masons and homeowners, and alternative
building technologies demonstrated to people. In addition, the use of alternative building materials was
regulated through guidelines endorsed by government.
See: Duyne Barenstein and Iyengar (2010) in the Resources section
Case Study 4: Transitional housing as a start for reconstruction in Kenya
In 2007, violence following the elections left half a million Kenyans displaced, mainly in the Rift Valley.
Many lost their houses, and more than half were housed in over 300 temporary camps. By the next
planting season, in March 2008, security had improved in some areas, allowing some to return to their
original plots, whilst others managed to buy new plots in locations where they felt safer. The government
then initiated operation Rudi Nyumbani (‘return home’), allocating approximately €100 to each affected
family, plus €250 to those who had their houses destroyed. This amount was insufficient for permanent
reconstruction, and the shelter cluster therefore suggested it be used for transitional as a start for future
development, to suit the changing context. This approach adopted the concept of incremental housing
development, quite common in Kenya. The following criteria were used:
• SPHERE standards for space requirements, that is 18 m² for a family of up to five;
• Ability to build the shelter in two days, to avoid losing too much time in the planting season;
• Ability to upgrade the shelter to permanent quality, that means a solid structure and roof to be provided
(of poles and galvanised corrugated iron sheets); but with temporary walls of plastic sheeting;
• Ability to disassemble the shelter and move it to a different site if necessary, e.g. because of rising
insecurity or disputes over land;
• Ability to disassemble the shelter and re-use key components for permanent housing;
• Ability to extend the shelter from basic SPHERE standards.
GOAL and UNCHR commissioned local artisans to build a prototype, in a very visible location, to obtain
feedback, and as a result some changes were made. A bill of quantity was subsequently drawn up, and
GOAL procured 497 ‘shelter kits’ at a cost of $385, which were distributed at central points.
The government initially resisted the shelter cluster approach, considering the standards applied too low
for a reconstruction programme. Given the scarcity of resources, though, it had to lower its expectations,
and ultimately accommodated much of the experience of the pilot project to a reconstruction programme
of 40,000 units, with house sizes being increased to 20 m², and more permanent walls of adobe or timber.
See Aubrey (2010) in the Resources section.
Case Study 5: Innovative approaches to tenure facilitate reconstruction in El Salvador
A devastating earthquake hit El Salvador in 2001. FUNDASAL, a well-known local NGO, undertook a
reconstruction programme of over 7,500 houses, built on a mutual-aid basis in the province of La Paz.
It included two innovative approaches to resolve land issues. Land tenure was dubious for a considerable
number of plots, some of the people affected were tenants, and others formed part of co-operatives without
recognised land titles. Therefore, over 1,800 houses were built with a light steel frame structure to make
them movable to another plot when the need arose. In other cases, a collective certification letter was
accepted as evidence of land tenancy.
See Building and Social Housing Foundation (2004) in the Resources section.
10