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

 
    Subscribe Home

Contact Us

About Us