| Marathawada Reborn... A study on 
            the rehabilitation efforts in providing alternative housing to 
            earthquake victims of Marathawada region of Maharashtra state
 
            Shelter Group, DA, Bangalore 
            
            It 
            is well remembered that on September 30, 1993 a devastating earthquake measuring 6.4 on the 
            Richter Scale struck the districts of Latur and Osmanabad. The 
            epicentre was near Killari village of Ausa taluk in Latur district 
            where the destruction was maximum both in terms of loss of life and 
            property. 
            The earthquake in its wake brought with it an 
            unprecedented destruction to the people of Marathawada, mainly in 
            the districts of Latur and Osmanabad. A glimpse of the damage 
            brought by the earthquake is given below : 
              
                | ► | Approximately 10, 
                000 people died and 16, 000 were injured. |  
                | ► | 2.24 lakh rural 
                homes were damaged in Marathawada. |  
                | ► | Property valued at 
                Rs 3 billion was damaged. |  
                | ► | 52 villages had to 
                be totally relocated. |  
                | ► | Psycho-socio-cultural trauma is disturbing 
                the populace even after four years |  
            The government of Maharashtra responded with 
            lightening speed and announced a very ambitious rehabilitation 
            programme, popularly known as the Maharashtra Earthquake Emergency 
            Relief Programme (MEERP). Many lessons were learnt at all levels of 
            implementation, which will provide valuable feedback for future 
            disaster management and disaster readiness plans for the policy 
            makers, CAPART, Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment. 
            The Government of India commissioned Development 
            Alternatives, a premier national NGO which incidentally had 
            experience of a rehabilitation programme in Latur, to undertake a 
            comprehensive study of the rehabilitation programme. 
            An innovative study was formulated in 
            consultation with experts in disaster management, architecture, 
            structural engineering, social scientists and psychiatric social 
            workers. Information was gathered through both conventional and 
            non-conventional data collection methodologies. An innovative 
            information collection workshop was organised wherein the donors and 
            implementing agencies were brought together with a view to 
            participatory information gathering which was a unique methodology 
            adopted. Focus group workshops with the victims were used as the 
            main tools for information collection to avoid individual biases. 
            Information thus collected was thoroughly analysed, using standard 
            statistical methods to arrive at logical conclusions. Experts 
            reviewed the statistical results and helped in formulating 
            recommendations. The study focussed its attention on the 
            rehabilitation policy, the delivery process, habitat and 
            architectural aspects, technology related issues and the impact that 
            the rehabilitation process brought in. The study culminated in the 
            form of two comprehensive documents, one targetted at the policy 
            makers and NGO managers and the other at general readers. They are 
            titled (1) Marathawada Reborn: A study report on the 
            rehabilitation efforts in providing alternative housing to 
            earthquake victims of Marathawada region of Maharashtra state and 
            (2) Strategising Earthquake Rehabilitation : Notes from Marathawada.
             
            In the following paragraphs the major findings of 
            this study are given. 
            Major Learnings : 
            MEERP provided major learnings at various levels which are very 
            valuable for the design of any future rehabilitation process. The 
            programme is highly complex in terms of complexity of delivery, 
            multiplicity of house design and technology and materials for 
            construction. Perceptions about the programme are varied. But the 
            efforts of the government of Maharashtra are commendable. The 
            paragraphs which follow, list down the major learnings. 
            Policy: MEERP 
            policy guidelines are comprehensive, and take into consideration 
            various issues which will affect the process of delivery like 
            community participation, engineering soundness and various models of 
            delivery, redressal and monitoring mechanisms. 
            Delivery process 
            : The main 
            learning from the programme is the importance of complete 
            involvement by the affected communities in the whole process of 
            rehabilitation, starting from planning to implementation. The second 
            learning, that of the mechanical implementation by government 
            contractors, is viewed as sub standard and not accepted by the 
            people. 
            Habitat design
             
            The major learnings in this area are: 
              
                | 1. | Involvement of people 
                in designing their own habitat is essential for success. |  
                | 2. | People have shown a 
                desire for grid pattern layouts, initially owing to the glamour 
                for urban style of settlements not realising their own needs. |  
                | 3. | Designers need to be 
                sensitive to the social and traditional needs of a village. |  
                | 4. | Local geographic and 
                climatic features have been overlooked here and need to be 
                carefully considered in the future designs. |  
                | Technology |  
                | The major learnings are: |  
                | 1. | New and outside 
                complex, technologies die down very fast because people are 
                unable to replicate them on their own. |  
                | 2. | Cost effectiveness and 
                other people friendly factors were totally over looked because 
                the technology choice was biased towards structural stability 
                against earthquakes. |  
                | 3. | Many inappropriate 
                technologies have gained acceptance of people, whereas 
                appropriate technologies were rejected, owing to insufficient 
                communication and training of local people by the AT 
                institutions and government. |  
                | 4. | Retrofitting and 
                strengthening were never perceived as permanent solutions 
                against future disaster and were always looked at with doubt. 
                Hence, even after successful demonstrations of validity of these 
                techniques, people failed to accept them. |  
            Impact of the Rehabilitation process on the 
            people of earthquake affected villages
             
            MEERP brought with it both positive and negative 
            impacts, the positive being infrastructure development, health care, 
            education and child care, increased income generation prospects, and 
            availability of easy credit, a positive change in socio cultural 
            attitude and political decentralisation. 
            The negative impacts were increased alcoholism, 
            drug addiction, lethargic attitude by the youth, increased 
            prostitution, migration of work force from other states, resulting 
            in reduced job opportunities to local people and vitiated political 
            situation. 
            The study enlisted the successes and weaknesses 
            of the MEERP which can be used by the future disaster management 
            strategies while formulating a policy at a later date. 
              
                | Successes |  
                | 1. | A never before 
                programme, with complexity and scale was conceived, funds raised 
                and managed well in a small time frame. |  2. | 
              Help from various sections of society was 
              called for and obtained in providing rehabilitation to the 
              affected masses.
                 | 
                | 3. | Community involvement 
                was at least attempted in every aspect of the rehabilitation 
                process. |  
                | 4. | In contrast to 
                conventional approach as in the case of most rehabilitation 
                processes, multiplicity, experimentation and innovation were allowed within a guided 
              framework. |  
                | 5. | A very well thought 
                out delivery mechanism with involvement of various expert 
                consultants resulted in quality delivery within a set target 
                time frame. |  
                | Weakness |  
                | 1. | The policy has some 
                flaws owing to political compulsion of being populist in nature. |  
                | 2. | The Project Management 
                Unit (PMU) is taking 
              a long time in awarding contracts and completion of projects even 
              after four years, owing to bureaucratic procedures. |  
                | 3. | Engineers of the PMU are encouraging people 
              to build new rooms instead of their mandated duty of providing 
              technical support to villagers in strengthening and retrofitting 
              their own houses in ‘C’ category villages. |  
                | 4. | Even after huge 
                investment in massive relocation and reconstruction, the victims 
                are not satisfied with the quality design, structural soundness 
                of the new houses and are sleeping outside the new houses. |  
                | 5. | People’s capability to 
                help themselves has been overlooked and lots of external aid was 
                pumped in, resulting in people becoming dependent. We hope the 
                study will be of some help to policy makers and other interested 
                people.  
                q |  
            
            This study is based on a comprehensive post 
            programme
 analysis of the Latur earthquake rehabilitation process.
 
             Back to Contents |