M N Joglekar

A country of the size of India with the given range of geo-climatic variations, witnesses a variety of disasters - earth quakes, cyclones, floods, land slides and drought- almost an annual occurrence now. In fact , a number of areas like Kachchh & Saurashtra, north eastern region and the Himalayan region are also prone to occurrence of multi-disasters in various combinations. Consequently the approach to the rehabilitation has to evolve an essential denominator of preventive measures common to all the disasters. More importantly, the rehabilitation process has to evolve a common ground of attitudes between the various actors involved in the process- beneficiaries, bureaucracy, technocrats, NGOs, politicians, donor agencies, construction agencies. It is here that the main dilemma of the rehabilitation process surfaces. Who participates. How much participation and should peoples’ perception over ride the perspective visions of qualitative development-either rural or urban?

In any calamity a comprehensive process gets initiated at the level of the State govt; considering its reach and the funding needs that are generally beyond the capabilities of even the largest Development Organisations. Three models of the rehabilitation process have emerged; which in turn decide the participatory networking.

Is participatory process necessary? Most disaster rehabilitation will have generally two parties. Affected people and Rest to help them. Generally people are expecting grant assistance. Humanitarian issues as well as political needs make it impossible for the Donors to dictate terms even where the supply of grant assistance falls short of demand for it. However, the recent Gujarat earthquake has seen a strange phenomena of grant supply in excess of the demand, particularly in the NGO sector. Participatory rehabilitation in true sense becomes impossible in such a situation. Beneficiary recipients are in a position to choose and set their terms which tends to make the process entirely one-sided. In such case, optimum technical solutions & environmental quality in settlement planning are likely casualties and may result in undesirable physical transformations of the rural settlement.

Beneficiary consultation processes often get swayed due to the indirect, perceived weight of the controlling administrative authority like the District Collector and Town Planning department. This is again an example of fallibility of the peoples perceptions and also indicates a limitation to the theory that the Peoples’ wishes are supreme. Another crucial issue is the level of people’s participation, the issue of PARTICIPATION-WHERE?. In physical rehabilitation (Shelter) the participation process involves design, construction & maintenance activities. The individual shelter design calls for considerable participation since people’s lifestyles are involved and any clustering of shelters can only be evolved because people would like to choose their neighbours.

In choosing construction materials and construction systems, tradition and peoples’ ability to handle technology is important. In disaster rehabilitation, where concern for safety measures is highest, gaining the confidence of beneficiaries is of prime importance. Misinformed beneficiaries can spell trouble and even good projects can get scuttled.

At the settlement level, peoples’ perceptions loose its’ edge, while a relatively higher role needs to be played by professionals in a mutual dialogue that involves beneficiaries of the project. Shelter design dictates the possibility of beneficiary involvement in construction process. Simplicity of the construction systems and the materials are the key to self help process. On the whole however experience of most projects indicates that very few beneficiaries like to get involved in construction unless they already are construction workers themselves.

An interesting by-product of the disaster rehabilitation during last ten years has been involvement of Architects & Engineers in the participatory processes. Shelter rehabilitation being a physical development concern; beneficiary sensitive technical professionals have proved to be better managers in participatory processes than non technical NGOs, one prime example being the role played by Building Centres in project management. Several successful beneficiary oriented projects managed by technical persons, particularly the younger generation, can be cited as good examples. Persons who have the benefit of the technical knowledge and construction management can also play a major role in educating the beneficiaries in understanding the technological necessities, cost effectiveness of various products, its manufacture and distribution. In construction processes people get convinced by those who can stand at the site and make a strong building come up above ground. Development Alternatives in Delhi is one such organisation working in Orissa reconstruction of house.

The project was essentially taken up through HUDCO, a leading techno-financing institution in housing sector which is playing a major demonstrative role in disaster mitigation. Gopeshwar town, located at an altitude of nearly 2000 mts; was closest to the epicenter. The damage was to restricted buildings constructed with kachchha materials like mud. stone, bamboo etc; poorly constructed buildings in slums being the first to suffer. Construction through the Beneficiaries, under the guidance of HUDCOs’ project management team, was adopted as the implementation mode.

The Harijan Basti identified for the upgradadtion was a high density settlement with 1161 persons / hectare. The 336 persons in 39 families lived in most unhygienic conditions with waste water flowing through the settlement with no drains and paths. The old houses needed reconstruction while some houses of recent origin were identified for retrofitting. Resolution of constant intra-Basti conflicts and instilling pride for the project was the first challenge for the HUDCO team. To ensure the beneficiaries’ attachment to the project and motivation, a committee of the Basti occupants was formed and a consensus was evolved for issues related to ownership identification, plot sizes with and boundaries, house sites, widening of drains, community infrastructure, etc.

The next bottleneck was the release of money to the beneficiaries for implementation. As evidence suggested, there was a big risk of misuse of money by male family members. Hence, it was decided and accepted to give the grant money to female member/house wife in small instalments deposited in the bank account opened by each beneficiary in the name of the lady. In fact, woman empowerment and their involvement in the participatory process was the key to the successful project implementation.

The District Magistrate of Chamoli extended all the administrative logistical support. Some basti dwellers identified to act as catalytic agents in the development process were trained in earth quake resistant techniques, both for reconstruction and retrofitting, at the nearest Building Center at Birahi. It was here that the HUDCO Habitat Engineers exhibited strong social commitment much outside the sphere of officialdom and virtually stayed in the Basti which made the Gopeshwar citizens and local media more serious about the project.

The houses were categorized according to the extent of damage to decide the financial assistance and amounts were disbursed according to the progress of work at site. It was made clear that only proper utilization of grant money would result in release of next instalments and this was strictly adhered to. The beneficiary executed the work complete with earth quake resistant features under the supervision of HUDCO/Building Center site engineer. The Building Center provided materials such as concrete blocks, RCC planks and joists, precast stairs; sand, cement & steel was procured by the Beneficiaries who were also encouraged to use materials available at site, such as random rubble, old door/windows etc

Initially, retrofitting and some new technologies raised questions about durability and required convincing through demonstration. After community decisions, the temple was retrofitted into a community centre and other infrastructure provided like water stand posts, toilets, waste water channel, pedestrian paths, tree plantations, etc.

The discipline mixed with humanitarian considerations allowed the project to move smoothly. Through a people inspired renaming process a Malin Basti (Slum) has become Shiv Shakti Nagar, a clean and inspiring settlement, much in tune with a middle class settlement. q

The author is former 
Executive Director (Design and Development), 
HUDCO and is presently a D&D Consultant.