Heiner Gloor , Shelter Centre

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?