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
I t
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
|