Friday 3 December 2010 Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Heiner Gloor, Shelter Centre Joanna...

Friday 3 December 2010Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA

Heiner Gloor, Shelter Centre

Joanna Read, Shelter Centre

Federica Lisa, Shelter Centre

Evaluation in Pakistan

Presentation


Purpose of the evaluation

1. Determine what lessons can be learned from the 2010 flood, and 2005 earthquake response in Pakistan for informing a set of Transitional Shelter Guidelines

2. Assess the value of IOM’s prefab transitional shelter programme in Kashmir (post 2005 earthquake )


1.Executive summary


Overview of shelters evaluated

Summary of findings

2.2005 Kashmir earthquake evaluation

Overview

Urban prefab shelter types

Findings

3. 2010 Pakistan flood evaluation

Overview

One room shelters

Transitional shelters

4. Conclusions

Content of this presentation


Executive summary



Executive summary


Kashmir (’05 Eq):Prefab shelters:• SIDA-IOM,• Saudi Government• Turkish Red Cross• Samaritan’s Purse


Executive summary



KPK (2010 flood)• NRC, PAKCDP, SAH transitional shelters•Ummah Welfare Trust reconstruction site





Punjab (2010 flood)•UN-Habitat one room shelter pilot project • UN-Habitat sandbag TS• IIH (Turkey) prefab TS



Executive summary



Sindh (2010 flood)IOM one room shelter pilot projects



Punjab (2010 flood)•UN-Habitat one room shelter pilot project • UN-Habitat sandbag TS• IIH (Turkey) prefab TS



Executive summary


Summary of findings

•Important to remember that transitional shelter will not be appropriate in all contexts

•Serious consideration needs to be given to the cost of transitional shelter: if all available funds are spent on TS, who will assist with permanent reconstruction?

•Transitional shelter is not necessarily a discrete step - should be seen as an integrated part of the response process

Executive summary


Summary of findings

•Transitional shelter may be appropriate in specific cases:

a. displaced persons;b. beneficiaries who need to focus on

activities other than rebuilding for some time;

c. very vulnerable households.

•Use local materials/techniques where possible: lack of acceptance, and setting up supply chains, can cause major delays

Executive summary


1.Executive summary



Summary of findings


Overview


Findings


Overview

One room shelters


4. Conclusions


2005 earthquake overview

Key facts

28,000 urban houses destroyed or damaged

83% housing units in Muzaffarabad damaged or destroyed

95% housing units in Balakot damaged or destroyed



Recovery strategy (urban)

Initial payment of Rs 25,000 ($ 290) from the Government, for immediate shelter needs

10,000 prefabricated transitional shelters provided in urban areas

A further Rs150,000 ($ 1,750) paid by the Government in two tranches



Muzaffarabad urban scenario

Balakot urban scenario

EarthquakeTentsfor up to 2 years

Prefab shelters

Reconstruction compliant to ERRA standards

No permanent reconstruction allowed

EarthquakeTentsfor up to 1 year

Prefab shelters

? Relocation

Unregulated reconstruction


IOM/SIDA/DAM shelter

•Cost: $4,600 (in 2006)

•‘Local’ materials: aluminium frame, insulation board, coated iron sheeting

•Parts assembled in workshops set up in town

Saudi Public Assistance

•Cost: $6,300 (in 2006) inc. latrine

•Aluminium frame, sandwich panels made in China

•All parts imported from Saudi Arabia (‘flat pack’) and assembled on site

Urban prefab shelter typesMuzaffarabad, November 2010

Balakot, November 2010


Urban prefab shelter typesSamaritan’s Purse

•Cost: $4,500 (in 2006)

•‘Local’ materials: galvanised iron frame, insulation board, CGI sheeting

•Constructed on site

Turkish Red Crescent

•Cost: $ Unknown – most expensive

•Transported via truck from Turkey

•Modified goods container - arrives ready assembled


Muzaffarabad, November 2010


Strengths

•Shelter quality and conditions: good

•Parts from some designs suitable for reuse in permanent constructions

•Earthquake-safe

•In some cases, basic designs have been replicated in permanent, seismic proof houses

Urban prefab shelter typesMuzaffarabad, November 2010


Urban prefab shelter typesWeaknesses

•Slow response time

•High cost

•Shelters much smaller than pre-earthquake construction

•Very little (often no) beneficiary involvement



FindingsWhat made some prefab designs more popular than others?

•Use of common/easy to understand construction techniques which can be replicated

•Easy to reuse/resell parts:• Standard parts• Good quality parts



FindingsLessons learned

•Key problem was the slow response – many people stuck in tents and prefabs for 5 years

•“Would have been better to provide money to beneficiaries to start reconstruction sooner”

•Donors allowed to dictate the response

•Samaritan’s Purse and some SIDA shelters much more popular due to use of standard parts



1.Executive summary


Overview


Findings


Overview

One room shelter

Transitional shelter

Permanent reconstruction

4. Conclusions


www.shelterpakistan.org

2010 floods overview

Key facts


Provinces Houses destroyed or damaged

Emergency shelter distributed - coverage

Remaining need*

PAK 6,308 34% 4,177

Balochistan 75,596 47% 40,372

Gilgit Baltistan

2,830 102% -

KPK 285,243 78% 61,498

Punjab 500,000 32% 274,346

Sindh 876,194 17% 639,793

TOTAL 1,746,171 33% 874,696

* Total remaining needs = sum of provincial remaining needs – unallocated pipeline

www.shelterpakistan.org

UN OCHA Update 1st Nov 2010

Key facts



‘Early recovery’ shelter strategy

The affected can be (very) roughly split into three groups:

• Possibility of return

• Extended displacement

• Seasonal flood migrantsSindh Province, Pakistan, November 2010



‘Early recovery’ shelter strategy

•‘One room shelter’ strategy selected for returnees

•Transitional shelter strategy selected only for extended displacement and seasonal flood migrants

Sindh Province, Pakistan, November 2010



Major problems faced by implementers:

•Time – water receding quickly and people start to rebuild very quickly

•Limited funding:

• Government assistance KPR 20,000 per family released so far for emergency needs

• Shelter cluster is currently 14% funded*

•Lack of technical surge capacity

•Local building practices not flood resistant



•Cost: $200-300

•Aim to assist beneficiaries in the (re)construction of one habitable room

•Agency assistance in form of limited materials (often doors/windows/roof) and or skilled labour, tech assistance

•Social mobilisation and mass communication to encourage beneficiaries to lead the construction, using salvaged and/or locally available material

One room shelter



Strengths

•Relatively cheap and fast (approx. 2 weeks)

•Potential for upgrade/extension

•Potential for hazard resistant features

•Supports local market and local economy

•Use of local and well accepted construction techniques

One room shelter



Weaknesses

•Relies on additional money from government (via WATAN) card

•May prevent beneficiaries from focussing on livelihood activities

•Slow agency response, difficulties in providing sufficient technical support in time (e.g. many shelters lack DRR features)

One room shelter



Lessons learned

•Potentially safe, durable and cost-effective if:

• sufficient technical assistance is provided as soon as construction starts

• funding is properly tailored to the needs of the beneficiaries

One room shelter



Lessons learned

•Early recovery/reconstruction strategy needs to be thought out during emergency phase

•Sometimes possible go move straight from emergency phase to reconstruction

One room shelter



•Cost: $500+

•Cluster strategy for:

• those facing extended displacement; and

• seasonal flood migrants

•Some NGOs also using transitional shelter for:

• beneficiaries whos primary need is to focus on agriculture

• beneficiaries who do not have resources to start rebuilding

Transitional sheltersPunjab Province, November 2010

NRC, KPK Province, 2010


Sandbag transitional shelter

•Currently one test shelter constructed by UN-Habitat. Originally intended for roll out to ~25 displaced families.

•Targeted at beneficiaries who have lost their land due sand deposits.

•Unlikely to be used on a large scale due to high cost and lack of acceptance.

Punjab Province, November 2010

UN-Habitat, Punjab Province, 2010



Strengths

•relatively cheap – encourages use of material readily available (sand on site!)

•reusable roofing material (I beam, chiq, bamboo)

•comfortable internal conditions (good thermal performance)

•opportunities for beneficiary involvement in construction

Punjab Province, Pakistan , November 2010



Weaknesses

•Lack of acceptance from community

• Beneficiaries not convinced that shelter is flood proof

• Stigma of ‘poor man’s construction’.

•Wall material not easy to reuse

•Expensive

Punjab, Pakistan, November 2010



Lessons learned

•Lots of grassroots dialogue is needed for the community to accept a new technology

•Vital for transitional shelter to include reusable elements

•Relatively high cost (>$500) makes this design financially unsustainable

UN-Habitat, Punjab Province, 2010


Light frame transitional shelter

•Transitional shelter being implemented while beneficiaries:

• are busy with agriculture;

• lack resources to rebuild

•Design used/tested in previous programmes (e.g. in KPK)

NRC, KPK Province, November 2010



Strengths

•Quick to assemble and relatively cheap

•Some support to local markets and economy – chiq, bamboo, timber

•Use of standard parts makes repairs easy

•All parts are potentially reusable

•Opportunities for some beneficiary involvement in construction

SLA, KPK Province, November 2010



Weaknesses

•Thermal performance is less optimal than in well built brick/mud shelters

•Necessary to set up supply lines in order for materials to reach beneficiaries

•Generally not locally accepted building techniques

•Not flood resistant

•Additional funds required for final construction – reliance on WATAN card

SLA, KPK Province, November 2010



Lessons learned

•Important that materials used are of good quality to allow for reuse/reselling

•Potentially a good approach for specific cases

•Beneficiaries may need further financial (and other) assistance for permanent reconstruction

UN-HABITAT, Sindh Province, 2010


Prefab transitional shelter

• Cost: ~ $ 4,500 – same amount to be spent on permanent reconstruction = $9,000 total

• Prefabs provided for village to use for 6 months while permanent buildings are being constructed. (55 homes, 2 offices, 1 school, latrines)

• Prefabricated shelter components imported by train and lorry from Turkey




Strengths

•Quick to assemble (1 hour?)

•Good shelter quality and durability

•Complete shelter kits are potentially stockpilable and reusable in another response

•Shelters are elevated – protection against minor flooding




Weaknesses

•Very expensive (~$4,500)

•Unlikely to be suitable for warm, humid climates

•Repairs potentially difficult due to imported, non standard parts

•‘Camp like’ layout of transitional shelters

•Unlikely that shelters will be reused due to easily damaged parts and the large logistic effort required




Lessons learned

•Donor driven approach can lead to less than ideal responses (all or nothing)

•Compared with means available this appears to be an extremely inefficient use of resources

•Prefabricated shelters are unlikely to be suitable for use in rural areas



1.Executive summary



Summary of findings


Overview


Findings


Overview

One room shelters


4. Conclusions


Conclusions

• Important to start to plan for early recovery in parallel with emergency phase

• The cost of a transitional shelter should be seriously considered as part of the overall response. Would funds be better spent on more rapid reconstruction?


Conclusions

• Better coordination needed at various levels:• inter-hub• headquarters-hubs• agencies - Shelter Cluster

• Institutional memory and technical knowledge sharing for better coordination and more timely response

• Consider investing in people


Thank you

Questions?

Friday 3 December 2010 Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Heiner Gloor, Shelter Centre Joanna...

Documents

Transcript of Friday 3 December 2010 Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Heiner Gloor, Shelter Centre Joanna...