1 / 48

Heiner Gloor , Shelter Centre

Presentation. Evaluation in Pakistan. Federica Lisa , Shelter Centre. Joanna Read , Shelter Centre. Heiner Gloor , Shelter Centre. Purpose of the evaluation.

marion
Download Presentation

Heiner Gloor , Shelter Centre

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Presentation Evaluation in Pakistan Federica Lisa, Shelter Centre Joanna Read, Shelter Centre HeinerGloor, Shelter Centre

  2. Purpose of the evaluation • Determine what lessons can be learned from the 2010 flood, and 2005 earthquake response in Pakistan for informing a set of Transitional Shelter Guidelines • Assess the value of IOM’s prefab transitional shelter programme in Kashmir (post 2005 earthquake )

  3. Content of this presentation • Executive summary • Purpose of the evaluation • Overview of shelters evaluated • Summary of findings • 2005 Kashmir earthquake evaluation • Overview • Urban prefab shelter types • Findings • 3. 2010 Pakistan flood evaluation • Overview • One room shelters • Transitional shelters • 4. Conclusions

  4. Executive summary • Overview of shelters evaluated

  5. Executive summary • Overview of shelters evaluated • Kashmir (’05 Eq): • Prefab shelters: • SIDA-IOM, • Saudi Government • Turkish Red Cross • Samaritan’s Purse

  6. Executive summary • Overview of shelters evaluated • Kashmir (’05 Eq): • Prefab shelters: • SIDA-IOM, • Saudi Government • Turkish Red Cross • Samaritan’s Purse • KPK (2010 flood) • NRC, PAKCDP, SAH transitional shelters • Ummah Welfare Trust reconstruction site

  7. Executive summary • Overview of shelters evaluated • Kashmir (’05 Eq): • Prefab shelters: • SIDA-IOM, • Saudi Government • Turkish Red Cross • Samaritan’s Purse • Kashmir (’05 Eq): • Prefab shelters: • SIDA-IOM, • Saudi Government • Turkish Red Cross • Samaritan’s Purse • KPK (2010 flood) • NRC, PAKCDP, SAH transitional shelters • Ummah Welfare Trust reconstruction site • 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

  8. Executive summary • Overview of shelters evaluated • Kashmir (’05 Eq): • Prefab shelters: • SIDA-IOM, • Saudi Government • Turkish Red Cross • Samaritan’s Purse • Kashmir (’05 Eq): • Prefab shelters: • SIDA-IOM, • Saudi Government • Turkish Red Cross • Samaritan’s Purse • KPK (2010 flood) • NRC, PAKCDP, SAH transitional shelters • Ummah Welfare Trust reconstruction site • 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 Sindh (2010 flood) IOM one room shelter pilot projects

  9. 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

  10. Executive summary • Summary of findings • Transitional shelter may be appropriate in specific cases: • displaced persons; • beneficiaries who need to focus on activities other than rebuilding for some time; • very vulnerable households. • Use local materials/techniques where possible: lack of acceptance, and setting up supply chains, can cause major delays

  11. Executive summary • Purpose of the evaluation • Overview of shelters evaluated • Summary of findings • 2005 Kashmir earthquake evaluation • Overview • Urban prefab shelter types • Findings • 3. 2010 Pakistan flood evaluation • Overview • One room shelters • Transitional shelters • 4. Conclusions

  12. 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

  13. 2005 earthquake overview 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

  14. 2005 earthquake overview Muzaffarabad urban scenario Balakot urban scenario Reconstruction compliant to ERRA standards Tents for up to 2 years Prefab shelters Earthquake ? Relocation Unregulated reconstruction Tents for up to 1 year Prefab shelters Earthquake No permanent reconstruction allowed

  15. Urban prefab shelter types Muzaffarabad, November 2010 • 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 Balakot, November 2010

  16. Urban prefab shelter types Balakot, November 2010 • Samaritan’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

  17. Urban prefab shelter types 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

  18. Urban prefab shelter types Balakot, November 2010 • Weaknesses • Slow response time • High cost • Shelters much smaller than pre-earthquake construction • Very little (often no) beneficiary involvement

  19. Findings Balakot, November 2010 • What 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

  20. Findings Balakot, November 2010 • Lessons 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

  21. Executive summary • 2005 Kashmir earthquake evaluation • Overview • Urban prefab shelter types • Findings • 3. 2010 Pakistan flood evaluation • Overview • One room shelter • Transitional shelter • Permanent reconstruction • 4. Conclusions

  22. 2010 floods overview Key facts www.shelterpakistan.org

  23. 2010 floods overview Key facts UN OCHA Update 1st Nov 2010 www.shelterpakistan.org * Total remaining needs = sum of provincial remaining needs – unallocated pipeline

  24. 2010 floods overview • ‘Early recovery’ shelter strategy • The affected can be (very) roughly split into three groups: • Possibility of return • Extended displacement • Seasonal flood migrants Sindh Province, Pakistan, November 2010

  25. 2010 floods overview • ‘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

  26. 2010 floods overview • 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

  27. One room shelter • 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 Sindh Province, Pakistan, November 2010

  28. 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 Sindh Province, Pakistan, November 2010

  29. 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) Sindh Province, Pakistan, November 2010

  30. 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 Sindh Province, Pakistan, November 2010

  31. 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 Sindh Province, Pakistan, November 2010

  32. Transitional shelters Punjab Province, November 2010 • 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 NRC, KPK Province, 2010

  33. Sandbag transitional shelter Punjab Province, November 2010 • 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. UN-Habitat, Punjab Province, 2010

  34. Sandbag transitional shelter • 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

  35. Sandbag transitional shelter • 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

  36. Sandbag transitional shelter • 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

  37. Light frame transitional shelter NRC, KPK Province, November 2010 • Transitional shelter being implemented while beneficiaries: • are busy with agriculture; • lack resources to rebuild • Design used/tested in previous programmes (e.g. in KPK)

  38. Light frame transitional shelter • 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

  39. Light frame transitional shelter • 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

  40. Light frame transitional shelter • 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

  41. Prefab transitional shelter Punjab Province, November 2010 • 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

  42. Prefab transitional shelter • 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 Punjab Province, November 2010

  43. Prefab transitional shelter • 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 Punjab Province, November 2010

  44. Prefab transitional shelter • 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 Punjab Province, November 2010

  45. Executive summary • Purpose of the evaluation • Overview of shelters evaluated • Summary of findings • 2005 Kashmir earthquake evaluation • Overview • Urban prefab shelter types • Findings • 3. 2010 Pakistan flood evaluation • Overview • One room shelters • Transitional shelters • 4. Conclusions

  46. 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?

  47. 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

  48. Thank you • Questions?

More Related