YOGYAKARTA
HUMANITARIAN

BAMBOO
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM

NOTES

JOGYAKARTA,
JUNE
26,
2008




The
following
document
provides
a
compilation
of
the
notes
on
presentations,

discussions
and
debates
taken
throughout
the
day
by
the
three
notetakers
employed
by

the
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
at
the
first
Indonesian
consultative
forum
on
the
use

of
bamboo
in
humanitarian
response.


Compiled
by
Dave
Hodgkin
(Benchmark
Consulting)
and
Kim
Williamson



EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

BACKGROUND


The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
Project
aims
to
provide
tools
and
resources
to
humanitarian

workers
to
promote
and
facilitate
the
better
use
of
bamboo
in
humanitarian
response.

It
aims
to
bring
together
humanitarian
workers
and
bamboo
experts
to
synthesise
and

make
accessible
existing
knowledge
about
the
use
of
bamboo.



The
needs
of
humanitarian
actors
are
unique:
they
are
under
time
pressures,
mandated

to
prioritise
human
needs,
and
need
to
find
“good
enough”
and
timely
solutions,
not

overengineered
solutions.
Furthermore,
every
situation
will
be
different.
This
project
is

intended
to
provide
principles
and
guidelines
necessary
for
humanitarian
workers
to


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

1





make
good,
informed
decisions
about
using
bamboo,
to
make
it
easy
for
them
to

integrate
sustainable
and
accurate
techniques
and
procedures
for
using
bamboo
into

the
common
vocabulary
of
the
humanitarian
sector.



The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
came
out
of
the
recognition
that
the
Jogyakarta

earthquake
response
was
unique
in
the
humanitarian
sector
for
turning
out
a
huge

number
of
shelters
in
a
short
time
using
bamboo.
75,000
bamboo
t‐shelters
were
built

by
humanitarian
sector

in
9
months,
and
2‐3

times
that
number
built

by
community.
Bamboo

was
chosen
as
a
primary

building
material
in

transitional
shelter

because
of
cost,
time,

capacity
to
source
mass

quantities,
and
local

knowledge
and
cultural

familiarity
with
bamboo

as
a
traditional
building

material.



PRESENTATIONS

• Introduction
to
the
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
by
Dave
Hodgkin,
Humanitarian

Bamboo
lead
consultant,
and
Sebastian
Fesneau,
Humanitarian
Response

Coordinator,
PRIME
Programme

• Summary
of
Humanitarian
Bamboo
workshop
in
India
and
the
role
of
RedR
India
by

Sarbjit
Singh,
director
of
RedR
India

• IOM
t‐shelter
programme
by
Ashley
Carl,
IOM
Acting
Director

• IFRC
t‐shelter
programme
by
Bill
Marsden,
Jogyakarta
Recovery
Coordinator


• Research
into
bamboo
technology
by
Professor
Purwito,
Research
Institute
for

Human
Settlements,
Department
of
Public
Works,
Bandung




DISCUSSION
THEMES

• Environmental
impact
of
bamboo
harvest
in
humanitarian
response

• Resource
management
and
harvesting
of
bamboo


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

2





• Mapping
the
availability
of
the
Indonesian
and
global
bamboo
resource

• Treatment
of
bamboo

• Jointing
techniques




RECOMMENDATIONS


There
can
be
a
tension
between
humanitarianism
and
environmentalism
in
emergency

response
organizations
which
have
a
clear
mandate
for
prioritising
human
needs.
This

can
be
problematic
in
disaster
response
as
communities
are
often
dependent
on
their

local
environment:
the
humanitarian
sector
needs
to
be
aware
of
the
importance
of

environmental
issues
to
the
communities
that
they
serve.
Bamboo
experts
argue
that
it

is
a
fallacy
that
you
can
clear‐cut
bamboo
with
little
effect
on
bamboo
regeneration:

even
a
renewable
resource
can
be
harvested
in
an
unsustainable
way.
In
order
for

bamboo
to
be
a
genuinely
sustainable
option,
there
should
be
clear
guidelines
for

mechanisms
that
support
best
practice
procurement
of
the
bamboo
resource.



• A
study
needs
to
be
carried
out
to
definitively
establish
the
impact
of
the
Jogyakarta

shelter
response
on
Java’s
bamboo
forests.

• Clear
guidelines
for
best
clump
management
need
to
be
drawn
up
and
be
easily

accessible
within
the
humanitarian
sector.
Bamboo
management
programs
should

be
an
integral
part
of
future
emergency
shelter
response
from
the
start.

• A
map
of
the
bamboo
resources
in
Indonesia
(and
potentially
global
bamboo

availability)
should
be
developed
for
humanitarian
shelter
purposes,
e.g.
a
GIS
map

of
bamboo
resources
within
shipping
distance.
A
simple
map
of
bamboo
distribution

that
could
satisfy
the
three
structural
needs
of
humanitarian
construction,
on
a

regional
scale
with
rough
capacity
of
the
bamboo
stock
would
be
sufficient
for

humanitarian
actors
to
know
whether
a
bamboo
project
is
viable
there.


• Although
it
might
be
outside
the
scope
of
disaster
management
agencies,
it
is
worth

considering
planting
bamboo
to
prepare
for
its
use
in
humanitarian
crises,
or
to

consider
the
possibility
of
developing
replanting
programs
or
community
carbon

credit
schemes.


TECHNICAL
ISSUES
TO
INCLUDE
IN
THE
MANUAL

• Glues

• Jointing
techniques
and
connection
system

• treatment
of
bamboo

• harvesting
and
sustainable
procurement
guidelines






YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

3





PRESENTATION
NOTES

The
following
section
of
this
report
contains
notes
taken
from
the

presentations
made
throughout
the
day


INTRODUCTION
TO
THE
HUMANITARIAN
BAMBOO
PROJECT:
DAVE

HODGKIN
AND
SEBASTIAN
FESNEAU


The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
Project
aims
to
provide
tools
and
resources
to
humanitarian

workers
to
promote
and
facilitate
the
better
use
of
bamboo
in
humanitarian
response.

This
involves
identifying
and
addressing
the
gaps
in
understanding
that
exist
between

humanitarian
workers
and
bamboo
experts.
Globally,
there
is
a
lot
of
knowledge
about

bamboo,
both
traditional
knowledge
and
scientific
knowledge:
our
priority
is
to

synthesise
that
knowledge,
simplify
it,
and
make
it
accessible
through
appropriate

literature
and
training.


Primary
Objectives



• Produce
a
set
of
technical
briefs
on
bamboo
temporary
shelters

• Develop
training
modules
about
bamboo
construction
based
on
technical
briefs

Secondary
Objectives


• Develop
further
bamboo
related
tools
specifically
for
the
Indonesian
context
as

agreed
upon

• Identify
and
make
recommendations
for
ongoing
needs
around
the
issue
of
bamboo

usage
in
humanitarian
work
as
it
applies
specifically
in
the
Indonesian
context
and

more
broadly
globally

The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
is
supported
by
Oxfam,
IFRC
and
RedR.
It
is
similar
in

scope
to
the:


• Humanitarian
timber
guidelines:
“A
guide
to
the
planning,
use,
procurement,
and

logistics
of
timber
as
a
construction
material
in
humanitarian
relief”,

www.humanitariantimber.org

• Plastic
sheeting
guidelines:
“A
guide
to
the
specification
and
use
of
plastic
sheeting

in
humanitarian
relief”,
http://plastic‐sheeting.org


ACTIVITIES


• Hire
a
lead
consultant
to
oversee
the
project:
Dave
Hodgkin


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

4





• Develop
a
website:
http://humanitarianbamboo.org


• Investigate
and
collate
global
resources
on
bamboo
construction
applicable
to
the

post‐natural
disaster
environment:
technical
briefs

• Conduct
meetings
with
bamboo
and
humanitarian
construction
experts
to
ensure

adequate
contribution
into
the
project

• Set
up
and
work
with
a
peer
review
group
to
overview
the
work
of
the
bamboo

project

• Assist
RedR
India
to
develop
training
modules


BACKGROUND


The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
came
out
of
the
recognition
that
the
Jogyakarta

earthquake
response
managed
to
turn
out
a
huge
number
of
shelters
in
a
short
time

using
bamboo.
This
was
unusual
for
the
humanitarian
sector.
There
were
75,000

bamboo
t‐shelters
built
by
humanitarian
sector
in
9
months,
and
2‐3
times
that
number

built
by
community.




The
global
Shelter
Cluster
and
IASC
recognised
the
potential
of
bamboo
but
lack
of
use

within
the
sector.
In
a
similar
vein
to
the
timber
and
plastic
sheeting
guidelines,
or
the

SPHERE
manual
for
humanitarian
workers,
the
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
was

established
in
order
to
address
that
knowledge
gap.
The
desired
outcome
is
a
practical

manual
about
how
to
use
bamboo:
how
to
investigate
a
problem
and
choose
and

implement
solutions.
It
should
be
easy
to
use
and
highly
accessible,
with
simple

diagrams
that
can
help
humanitarian
workers
make
informed
choices
about
using

bamboo.



The
style
of
the
manual
is
based
on
the
concept
that
in
any
emergency,
it
is
impossible

to
dictate
what
humanitarian
actors
need
to
do:
solutions
will
be
unique.
The
manual

will
be
a
set
of
best
practice
guidelines,
not
dictating
“correct”
solutions.


The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
is
initially
being
developed
at
the
Indonesian
level;

this
component
of
the
project
has
been
funded
by
Oxfam.
The
project
may

consequently
be
taken
to
an
international
level.



WORKSHOP


The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
workshop
is
designed
to
be
a
crossover
between

humanitarian
actors
and
bamboo
experts.
It
aims
to
create
a
discussion
space
between

humanitarian
actors
and
bamboo
specialist
to
get
recommendations
and
guidance
for

the
way
forward.



YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

5





SUMMARY
OF
HB
WORKSHOP
IN
INDIA
AND
THE
ROLE
OF
REDR
INDIA:

SARBJIT
SINGH,
DIRECTOR
OF
REDR
INDIA


RedR
is
a
global
organisation
with
offices
in
different
countries.
We
elect
people
to
be

on
a
database
(invitation
is
necessary
for
RedR
membership),
train
them,
and
help
place

them.
Training
is
a
primary
mandate
for
RedR,
as
emergency
work
is
specialised
work

but
it
can
be
difficult
to
find
programs
that
train
future
emergency
workers.


We
suggest
that
an
Indonesian
RedR
initiative
would
be
worthwhile
given
the
national

need
for
trained
emergency
management
specialists.


SUMMARY
OF
HUMANITARIAN
BAMBOO
WORKSHOP,
PUNE,
INDIA,
5
APRIL
2008












Participants
 included

bamboo
 experts,


humanitarian
professionals
and
HB
project
support
staff
(RedR
India
and
Dave
Hodgin).

The
workshop
discussed
the
technical
themes
of
bamboo
treatment,
bamboo

harvesting,
bamboo
construction,
with
in‐depth
discussion
on
treatment
systems,

harvesting
and
jointing
systems.
There
was
a
tour
of
bamboo
plantation
and
bamboo

construction
facilities.



DISCUSSION
OF
BAMBOO
TREATMENT



 In
the
emergency
stage,
treatment
is
not
required;
for
transitional
use
maybe

(desirable),
and
for
permanent
use,
yes.
If
treatment
is
required,
the
type
of

treatment
depends
on
a
wide
range
of
factors:
different
treatment
systems
suit

different
applications.


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

6





DISCUSSION
ON
HARVESTING
AND
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT


In
an
emergency,

chopping
the
whole
 HARVESTING
AND
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT

clump
is
acceptable,
 Best
practice:
Harvest
as
per
harvest
cycles
chart.
Harvest

although
good
clump
 culms
between
2‐5
years
old.
Thin
out
older
culms
and
take

management
is
best
 care
with
new
shoot
areas
(don’t
trample
on
new
shoots).


practice.
Good
clump

management
greatly
 Not
as
good:
Harvest
all
culms,
harvest
during
the
dry
season.

increases
productivity.

Worst
practice:
Harvest
whatever
you
need
when
you
need
it.

By
the
Transitional
 Guideline
from
India
workshop



phase
of
an
emergency
shelter

response,
good
clump
management
should
be

 

fully
integrated
into
the
procurement
chain.



 Harvesting
cycles:


• Harvest
during
non‐rainy/growth
season.

• Harvest
at
dawn
and
dusk
when
sap
levels
are
low,
but
visibility
is
sufficient.

• Harvest
when
the
moon
is
at
its
smallest,
as
this
is
a
low
sap
time

• Harvest
culms
older
than
2
years
and
less
than
5
years.



DISCUSSION
OF
BAMBOO
JOINTING



 Nodal
placement
is
much
more
critical
than
“fastening”
choice.
All
culms
should

have
a
node
“after”
or
on
the
joint.
Traditional
pegged
and
rattan
structures
suit

small
shelters,
whilst
bolts
are
best
for
large
structures.
Local
traditions
should
be

encouraged
and
reinforced.
Adequate
bracing
is
critical
for
joint
strength.



best:
bolts
>
peg
&
ratan
>
natural
fibre
rope
>
nylon
rope
>
wire>
nails
:
worst




 Guideline
from
India
workshop


EARLY
RECOVERY
IN
JOGYAKARTA
&
CENTRAL
JAVA
EARTHQUAKE

RESPONSE


On
the
26
May
2006,
an
earthquake
measuring
6
on
the
Richter
scale
struck
to
the

Jogyakarta
province
southeast
of
the
city.
Two
provinces
of
Java
were
seriously

impacted.
5,749
died,
and
38,000
injured,
but
shelter
was
the
overwhelming

humanitarian
need
in
the
earthquake
response:
303,000
houses
were
destroyed
or


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

7





seriously
damaged,
while
other
community
facilities
and
capacities
were
not
seriously

affected.
In
this
sense,
the
earthquake
was
a
man‐made
disaster
resulting
from
houses

were
not
well
built.


The
emergency
shelter
stage
of
the
earthquake
response
was
carried
out
relatively

successfully.
However,
after
the
experience
of
Aceh,
the
government
didn’t
want

anyone
to
build
transitional
shelter;
they
wanted
the
humanitarian
shelter
response
to

help
affected
communities
to
move
from
tents
and
tarpaulins
directly
to
permanent

housing.
There
was
widespread
concern
throughout
the
Cluster
that
there
would
be

serious
problems
housing
communities
in
the
interim
period
between
the
3‐6
month

lifetime
of
a
tent
or
tarpaulin
and
the
1‐2
years
that
it
might
take
for
to
rebuild

permanent
housing;
or
permanent
houses
would
be
rebuilt
too
quickly
and
not
very

well.
This
resulted
in
“a
massive
struggle
with
the
government
for
the
humanitarian

space
to
build
transitional
shelter”;
eventually,
the
Jogyakarta
earthquake
response

largely
focused
on
transitional
shelter.



CLUSTER
CONSENSUS
ON
T‐SHELTERS


The
Cluster
wanted
some
measure
of
equity
in
housing
across
the
shelter
response,
and

came
to
a
consensus
on
basic
principles
of
a
t‐shelter:
that
it
should
be
a
braced

structure
(some
had
footing),
most
had
a
door
on
the
end
(for
safe
exit
in
earthquake),

most
had
windows
down
the
side,
a
bamboo
roof
frame
with
a
tarp
for
an
initial
roof,

but
designed
to
handle
a
roof
tile
load
in
an
earthquake.
It
was
decided
that
a
t‐shelter

should
not
cost
less
than
$US100
or
more
than
$US200
(Rp
2
million).
Some
NGOs
built

more
expensive
houses
(Rp
5
million),
which
disqualified
the
beneficiaries
from
the

government
reconstruction
fund.



CHOICE
OF
BUILDING
MATERIALS


Bamboo
was
chosen
because
of
factors
including
the
speed
of
construction,
capacity
to

source
mass
quantities
–
Java
has
a
rich
local
bamboo
stock
–
and
funding

considerations.
The
cost
of
bamboo
in
Jogyakarta
at
the
peak
of
demand
almost

doubled
(petrol
levies,
construction
boom,
increased
demand),
but
it
was
still
a

relatively
cheap
material
to
build
with.
Other
factors
included
local
knowledge
about

bamboo
and
traditional
use
of
bamboo
as
a
building
material,
and
safety:
bamboo
is
a

strong
material,
and
if
it
is
collapsing
in
an
earthquake,
it
gives
time
for
people
to

escape.
Coconut
wood
was
an
option,
but
culturally
it
was
not
the
most
accessible.

Woven
bamboo
matting
was
chosen
as
a
traditional
wall
material.



YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

8





Earthenware
tiles
were
chosen
for
the
roof
for
a
number
of
reasons.
There
was
a
strong

cultural
consideration:
roof
tiles
were
the
overwhelmingly
preferred
choice
(99%)
of

roofing
material
according
to
the
initial
ER
assessment.
People
make
tiles
locally,
so

using
tiles
would
also
support
the
local
industry.
Furthermore
if
roof
tiles
were
used
in

the
transitional
shelter,
they
could
then
be
reused
in
the
permanent
house.
In
fact,

after
receiving
a
tarpaulin
for
a
temporary
roof
on
their
t‐shelter,
many
people
salvaged

the
tiles
from
their
original
house
and
putting
them
on
the
roof.
Finally,
thatching

wasn’t
a
viable
option
because
of
the
difficulty
of
sourcing
mass
quantities
of
coconut

leaves
or
long
grass.


CLUSTER
COORDINATION
AND
ADOPTION
OF
BEST
PRACTICE


It
is
important
to
remember
that
the
goal
of
a
humanitarian
response
is
to
reach

standards
that
are
“good
enough”,
not
perfect.
The
question
of
design
imperatives
vs

over‐engineering
was
a
difficult
question
for
the
Shelter
Cluster
to
answer.
When
in

doubt,
people
will
fall
back
to
more
engineered
solutions,
but
does
over‐engineering

cost
houses
and
delay
communities’
return
to
normality?
The
need
for
adequately

housing
people
as
quickly
as
possible
has
to
be
weighed
up
against
the
time
it
takes
to

develop
a
perfect
design.



Furthermore,
coming
up
with
the
best
plan
in
the
world
is
not
necessarily
what
is

needed,
because
the
key
question
is
whether
or
not
it
will
be
adopted.
Cluster

coordination
is
really
difficult:
it
never
works
to
produce
a
single
solution.
The
best
that

can
be
done
is
to
describe
(in
detail)
best
practice
guidelines,
and
make
it
easy
for

people
to
do
that.



COMMUNITY‐DRIVEN
PROCESS


The
training,
socialisation
and
implementation
of
t‐shelters
involved
thousands
of

stipended
volunteers.
At
the
peak
of
the
response,
300
IFRC
volunteers
were

dispatched
every
day.



The
NGOs
carrying
out
t‐shelter
programs
strongly
encouraged
beneficiaries
to
follow

the
design.
Quality
control
was
a
real
challenge,
and
the
volunteers/supervisors
were

essential
in
this
process
to
guide
and
support
good
construction.
The
more
the

volunteers
were
confident
and
engaged
in
the
process,
the
more
the
construction

followed
the
design
and
was
of
sufficient
quality.
In
some
cases
people
ignored
the

design,
such
as
in
Delingo,
a
remote
community
with
widespread
construction
skills
and


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

9





lots
of
resources;
in
other
cases
people
modified
the
design.
The
Cluster
wasn’t
too

concerned
with
variations
as
long
as
the
general
principles
were
followed
and
the

essential
points
satisfied
(e.g.
size
of
building,
safe
connections
etc).



“You
can’t
underestimate
the
value
of
reiteration
of
the
information.
There
were

posters,
books,
films,
training
lessons,
radio;
the
design
that
had
come
out
of

consultation
with
the
communities
and
agreed
upon
across
the
shelter
Cluster
was

reinforced
and
reinforced.
It’s
about
creating
that
path
of
least
resistance”
(Dave

Hodgkin).


COMMUNITY
CONSTRUCTION
SKILLS
AND
BAMBOO
KNOWLEDGE



“Community
levels
of
knowledge
about
bamboo
varied.
People
living
in
a
more

urbanised
environment
(peri‐urban
environments)
had
lost
their
inherent
knowledge

about
bamboo
so
bamboo
construction
quality
was
lower
in
the
urban
areas.
In

comparison,
the
rural
mountainous
communities
of
Gunug
Kidul
recovered
relatively

quickly,
despite
higher
levels
of
damage
from
the
earthquake
and
higher
levels
of

background
poverty.
One
of
the
reasons
for
this
was
that
prior
to
the
earthquake,
many

locals
worked
in
the
construction
industry,
and
that
community
experience
consequently

resulted
in
a
much
higher
level
of
self‐rebuilding”
(Dave
Hodgkin).


COMPARISON
OF
JOGYAKARTA
AND
ACEH


IOM
built
t‐shelters
in
Aceh,
but
didn’t
use
bamboo
because
west
Aceh
doesn’t
have

significant
bamboo
resources
and
the
transportation
process
would
have
been
difficult.

Immediate
available
resources
in
Aceh
were
coconut
and
timber.
There
was
also
less

traditional
use
of
bamboo
and
less
knowledge
about
how
to
use
it.
Furthermore
in

Aceh,
the
government
mandated
that
no
transitional
shelters
would
be
built;
instead

there
were
transitional
camps.



In
Jogyakarta,
no‐one
was
confident
of
government
assistance,
and
the
shelter

response
perceived
an
urgent
need
for
a
comprehensive
transitional
shelter
response.



“Fear
is
a
great
motivator:
because
there
was
never
enough
money
to
do
adequate

reconstruction,
people
needed
to
work
together.
It
wasn’t
clear
what
the
government

was
going
to
come
up
with.
There
was
widespread
confusion
about
whether
the

government
was
going
to
help
at
all,
especially
as
the
known
number
of
damaged

houses
increased:
10,000
houses,
100,000
houses,
200,000,
300,000”
(Dave
Hodgkin).


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

10





RISK
MITIGATION
OF
T‐SHELTER
PROGRAM


IFRC
had
never
before
carried
out
a
program
in
which
money
was
given
directly
to

beneficiaries
along
with
training.
IFRC
being
one
of
the
most
risk‐averse
organisations

mitigated
the
potential
risk
of
the
program
through
several
measures,
including

consulting
an
ex‐bank
manager
about
the
financial
side
of
the
program,
and
a
bamboo

expert
with
experience
in
three
countries
on
the
bamboo
construction
side.



AMOUNT
OF
BAMBOO
USED


On
average,
50
culms
were
used
per
house,
including
bamboo
weave.
(Depending
on

figures
of
bamboo
reconstruction),
the
earthquake
response
used
up
to

300,000
x
50
bamboo
culms
within
9
months.
The
impact
on
the
Javanese

bamboo
ecology
is
still
disputed
but
bamboo
experts
believe
that

significant
deforestation
of
bamboo
occurred.



FACTORS
THAT
ENABLED
AN
EFFECTIVE
SHELTER
RESPONSE


• The
Jogyakarta
earthquake
response
was
unusual
because
of
the
unified
nature
of
the

Shelter
Cluster.
A
diverse
range
of
people
and
organisations
worked
together,

including
local
universities,
international
NGOs
and
humanitarian
agencies,
local

NGOs,
UN
branches,
and
local
communities.
The
Cluster
in
general
was
very
open:

suppliers
were
shared,
posters
and
toolkits
were
shared.
The
Cluster
worked
closely

with
UGM
and
other
universities
who
helped
make
the
designs
similar
across
the

Cluster,
and
were
a
source
of
volunteers.
This
made
it
easier
to
share
lessons
on

designing
the
t‐shelter
and
create
a
coherent
shelter
response.
It
was
an
unusually

inclusive
process.


• Large‐scale
use
of
volunteers
allowed
for
rapid
skill
transfer.
The
skills
training
and

direct
funding
of
beneficiaries
empowered
communities
to
rebuild
themselves.


• There
was
limited
damage
to
social
infrastructure
in
Jogyakarta,
unlike
Aceh.

Furthermore
Jogyakarta
is
well‐located
at
the
centre
of
Java’s
web
of
supply.


• People
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
working
together
because
of
the
fear
that
there
was
not

going
to
be
money
to
do
adequate
reconstruction:
it
wasn’t
clear
when
or
how
the

government
was
going
to
assist.
Furthermore,
the
rainy
season
was
only
a
few
months

away.
In
hindsight,
there
was
more
than
enough
money,
it
was
a
heavy
rainy
season

everywhere
except
for
Jogyakarta,
and
the
government
managed
to
help
relatively

quickly.



OVERVIEW
OF
IOM
T‐SHELTER
PROGRAMME
IN
YOGYAKARTA:
ASHLEY
CARL


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

11





BRIDGING
THE
GAP


Transitional
shelter
facilitates
permanent
reconstruction
to
bridge
the
gap
between

emergency
shelter
and
permanent
reconstruction.
It
can
help
prevent
a
health
disaster

during
the
rainy
season;
it
is
quick
to
build;
and
80%
of
materials
can
be
reused
for

permanent
shelter
which
can
then
be
rebuilt
around
the
t‐shelter.



T‐shelters
were
more
about
socialisation
and
community
involvement
(distribution
and

assessment).
There
were
designed
to
last
for
two
years.
If
people
abandon
it,
the
t‐
shelters
tend
to
deteriorate
quickly,
but
if
people
live
in
it,
the
quality
is
maintained.

Bamboo
was
chosen
for
the
speed
at
which
it
could
be
built
and
the
cost.


DESIGN
PROCESS


The
design
of
the
t‐shelter
structure
was
a
learning
process
that
resulted
in
a
design

that
evolved
over
time,
after
modifications,
testing,
adapting
the
shelter
design
to

continual
inputs,
starting
from
the
emergency
phase
up
to
6‐9
months
later.
The
t‐
shelter
design
took
three
weeks,
with
continual
improvements
over
the
following
three

months,
and
then
load
testing
carried
out
(after
which
some
additional
trussing
was

added,
roof
tiles
1.4
kg,
1.1
maximum).
There
were
800kgs
of
roof
tiles,
so
the
design
of

the
trusses
was
important.
2.2
tonnes
of
vertial
load,
lateral
(transversal)
load
(600?),

longitudinal
2.1
tonne.



“The
success
of
the
t‐shelter
program
within
the
Shelter
Cluster
resulted
from
the

combined
efforts
of
all
participants.
In
IOM’s
case,
IOM
was
more
engaged
in
the

discussion
and
design
process
during
the
first
few
months
of
the
shelter
response,
this

allowed
IOM
to
observe
the
initial
efforts
of
earlier
shelter
actors
such
as
CHS
and

Oxfam,
and
wait
until
some
of
the
earlier
issues
were
resolved.
The
design
process
was

shorter
for
IOM
because
the
whole
Cluster
was
engaged
in
the
process,
in
which

minimum
guidelines
and
principles
were
drawn
up
that
everyone
agreed
on.
Lack
of

capacity
was
identified
early
on,
so
for
example
some
NGOs
conducted
training

programs
to
increase
the
capacity
of
the
community
to
produce
gedek”
(Dave
Hodgkin).


PREFABRICATION
AND
PRODUCTION
LINE


Daily
capacity
of
the
IOM
t‐shelter
program
was
200
shelters
(assessed,
procured,

produced,
distributed
&
constructed).
Large
scale
prefabrication
improved
the
quality

and
speed
of
construction.
IOM
set
up
a
production
line
with
40
workers
making

components
for
20
shelters:
in
total
400
workers
&
200
shelters
per
day.
IOM
had


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

12





quality
control
at
every
step,
but
still
found
defects
at
the
end
of
the
process.
It
was

important
to
have
a
final
quality
check
of
components
before
sending
them
out
to
the

village.


IOM
did
not
prefabricate
gedek
(bamboo
matting),
but
got
the
mats
from
a
supplier.


BENEFICIARIES


IOM
targeted
those
in
need
of
a
roof
in
a
village,
ie
people
with


• ‐
totally
or
heavily
damaged
houses

• ‐
no
shelter
support:
still
living
in
emergency
housing
(tarpaulins
and
tents)

• ‐
sufficient
space
for
3x6m
shelter

• ‐
willingness
for
gotong
royong

• ‐
dusun’s
with
high
numbers
are
prioritized

• ‐
100%
coverage
in
a
dusun

All
details
were
captured
in
a
beneficiary
database.


LOGISTICS


IOM’s
specialisation
in
logistics
facilitated
the
distribution
process,
including
170
trucks

(90
used
for
t‐shelter
programme).
There
was
daily
distribution
of
200
kits:
4
walling

elements,
4
roof
frames,
4
connecting
beams,
40
bambu
apus,
300m
tali
ijuk,
5
sacks
of

cement,
1
terpal,
0,5
cubic
pasir,
paku
2
tas
(2,5cm
and
3,5cm),
1
manual,
1
tool
kit
per

10
KK,
poster
bambu
dan
T‐shelter
(nails,
nylon
straps,
bamboo
sheeting,
prefab
roof

frame)
(160,000
sticks?).



IOM’s
construction
process
provides
for
training
and
quality
control


• partnership
with
the
University
of
Gadjah
Mada
(UGM)

• 100
volunteers,
300
skilled
workers,
200
shelters
per
day

• construction
volunteers
provide
technical
assistance,
quality
control
and
reporting

• density
of
supervision:
1
person
per
5
units.
Volunteers
are
the
supervisors.

• skilled
workers
provide
assistance
to
the
Gotong
Royong
process

(300
volunteers?
students
of
architecture
and
engineering:
technical
assistance
in
the

field)


• ‐
Transport
problems:
the
handling
of
the
bamboo
could
be
problematic
as
the

bamboo
could
cracks
during
transport.


• ‐
Construction/training
problem:
beneficiaries
might
not
have
knowledge
about

working
with
bamboo,
for
example
using
nails
and
cracking
the
bamboo,
and
then


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

13





using
the
bamboo
despite
its
structural
weakness
and
despite
having
a
supervisor
in

the
field
–
a
problem
due
to
the
training,
not
the
design.


IFRC
T‐SHELTER
PROGRAM
YOGYAKARTA,
LESSONS
LEARNED:
BILL


EARLY
RECOVERY
ASSESSMENT


Shelter
was
the
overwhelming
need
in
the
earthquake
response.
People
needed
a
safe

place
to
leave
family
and
possessions
so
they
could
get
back
to
work.
Within
days,

communities
had
secured
their
homes
and
remaining
possessions.
Social
cohesion
was

strong,
markets
were
functioning
and
recovery
started
immediately.


RELIEF
ASSISTANCE


PMI
reached
nearly
120,000
families
by
November
2006.
This
included:


• 11,877
tents
and
110,944
tarpaulins

• 100,000
hygiene
kits,
sarongs
&
food
parcels

• Extensive
public
health,
water
and
sanitation
&
psycho‐social
support
programs


SHELTER
PROGRAM
DESIGN


The
goal
of
the
program
was
to
empower
community
members
to
rebuild
their
lives

starting
with
the
construction
of
a
transitional
shelter.
The
t‐shelter
design
developed

through
understandings
of
locally
available
materials,
community
needs,
capacity
and

objectives
of
the
PMI‐IFRC
Team,
and
through
working
as
parting
of
the
Shelter
Cluster.

The
Shelter
Cluster
guidelines
included
housing
being
seismic
resistance,
designed
up
to

two
years,
less
than
$US200,
and
using
materials
could
be
recycled.
There
was
a
high

level
of
uncertainty
about
what
the
government
would
do
and
when.



TEAM
MEMBERS


IFRC’s
design
team
included
a
bamboo
expert
with
disaster
reconstruction
experience

in
Venezuela
and
Flores,
undergraduate
architects,
community
consultation,
training

team,
top
NGO
facilitators/trainers,
implementation
team,
and
enthusiastic
young
PMI

volunteers.
The
PMI
volunteers
were
often
very
willing
to
help,
but
had
a
low
level
of

confidence
or
experience.



• Indonesian
Red
Cross
Volunteers

• Indonesian
Red
Cross
Staff
and
Boards


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

14





• Atma
Jaya
University
Yogyakarta

• Gajah
Mada
University

• IFRC
Early
Recovery
Team

• Shelter
Cluster

• The
Communities
of
Yogyakarta
and
Central
Java


TRAINING
PROCESS


The
training
process
involved
hands‐on
training
for
three
days
and
nights
making
straw

models,
a
mock‐up
frame,
finance
training
and
team
building
exercises.
Community

training
lasted
up
to
1
week
in
which
the
volunteers
and
community
built
the
first

shelter
together
with
supporting
media:
a
step‐by‐step
guide,
informative
video
about

using
bamboo
in
construction,
safe
house
advertisements
and
booklet.



Key
points
that
were
emphasised
within
the
community
trainings
included:


• How
to
chose
and
prepare
the
right
bamboo

• Don’t
use
green
bamboo

• Harvest
at
the
end
of
the
dry
season
(when
the
bamboo
has
low
carbohydrate


 content)

• How
to
build
a
seismic
resistant
house

• Feet,
bracing
and
joints

Other
key
points
in
the
community
program
included
training
and
field
support,
live‐in

helping
volunteers
who
often
stayed
for
several
months.
IFRC
then
provided
daily

technical
support
and
with
volunteers
engaging
in
a
weekly
reflective
learning/training

session.


THE
COMMUNITY‐BASED
T‐SHELTER
PROGRAM


The
IFRC
t‐shelter
program
gave
small
cash
grants
supporting
traditional
mutual

support
mechanisms
(gotong
royong)
to
neighborhood
groups
to
buy
tools
and
basic

materials
to
build
temporary
shelters.
Funds
were
delivered
through
group
bank

accounts
in
3‐4
tranches.
The
community
contributed
labour
and
materials
recovered

from
rubble.


IFRC
cooperated
with
local
universities
to:


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

15





• Develop
technical
inputs
to
shelter
design
and
messages

• Develop
posters,
pamphlets,
t‐shirts,
etc

• Train
students
to
deliver
“build
back
better”
messages
under
staff
supervision

• Set
up
mobile
construction
clinics
(UGM)

The
local
media
also
got
involved
reinforcing
best
practice
shelter
and
construction

messages
on
the
radio,
TV
and
in
print.


IMPLEMENTATION


It
took
one
month
for
community
preparation
and
1
week
to
build
740
“model”
houses

through
a
public
competition.
In
months
29,
12,
250
“decent”
shelters
were
built,
which

was
22.5%
of
UNOCHA
recorded
shelters.
Rp
21,000,000,000
disbursed
to
761
groups
at

a
cost
per
unit
under
$US200.
People
were
able
to
return
to
work,
vulnerable
people

were
reached,
and
financial
skills
learned
by
communities.

The
program
closed
in
April

2007:

“turned
a
tragedy
into
opportunity”.


However,
it
could
have
been
so
much
more!
The
Indonesian
Red
Cross
was
concerned

and
hesitant
about
this
program
as
they’d
never
given
cash
directly
to
beneficiaries,
so

the
program
had
little
funding
at
the
start:
it
took
two
months
to
get
the
program

running.
There
was
a
sense
that
had
the
program
been
scaled
up
faster,
if
there
had

been
more
volunteers,
many
more
shelters
could
have
been
built
and
more
people

could
have
been
reached.



“Achieving
good
recovery
and
risk
reduction
outcomes
in
shelter
is
not
about
building

structures,
it
is
about
building
trust
with
communities.”


RESEARCH
INTO
BAMBOO
TECHNOLOGY:
PROFESSOR
PURWITO


Department
of
Public
Works
Research
Center,
Bandung


It
is
a
common
belief
throughout
Indonesian
society
that
if
you
live
in
a
bamboo
house

it
means
that
you
are
poor
or
comes
from
the
lowest
level
of
society.
We
are
trying
to

change
the
image
of
bamboo:
it
is
not
just
a
“primitive,
natural”
material
used
in
rustic

building
construction,
but
can
be
processed
to
make
modern
commercial
products
that

compete
with
less
environmentally
friendly
materials
(note:
perceptions
of
bamboo
in

rural
vs
urban
are
different).
Bamboo
has
many
benefits,
such
as
the
environmental

benefit
of
using
a
natural
material
with
a
water‐based
glue.




We
have
many
machines
to
process
bamboo.
There
are
machine
for
cutting
bamboo,


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

16





crushing
bamboo,
a
cold
press
and
hot
press.
There
are
many
kinds
of
glue
but
I
use

water‐based
glue.
We
have
a
range
of
machines
for
testing
various
structural
aspects
of

the
bamboo
products,
including
a
universal
testing
machine
for
testing
material,
small

electric
oven,
and
a
moisture
tester.
For
testing
building
structures,
there
is
a
reaction

wall
to
test
the
strength
of
a
two‐storey
wall
in
an
earthquake
and
a
tilting
table.



We
use
international
standards
for
bamboo
testing:


• International
Standard
ISO
22156
(2004)
Bamboo
–
Structural
Design

• International
Standard
ISO
22157‐1:
2004
(E)
Bamboo
‐
Determination
of
physical

and
mechanical
properties
‐
Part
1:
Requirements


• Technical
Report
ISO/TR
22157‐2:
2004
(E)
Bamboo
‐
Determination
of
physical
and

mechanical
properties
–
Part
2:
Laboratory
manual

We
have
developed
a
variety
of
products
included
laminated
bamboo,
plyboo,
a

lightweight
honeycomb
panel,
and
a
bamboo
plaster
panel
which
is
used
for
containers,

walling
and
partitions
and
is
sound
proof.
In
1994,
a
friend
and
I
from
Japan
developed

non‐treated
bamboo
mats
plastered
with
rice
straw
and
mud,
and
covered
in
lime.

Houses
using
this
composite
material
as
walls
are
still
in
excellent
condition
14
years

later.
We
also
develop
a
truss
clamp
system.
A
concrete
knock‐down
house
used
by

IOM
in
Aceh
included
the
honeycomb
panel,
which
is
still
weatherproof
after
3
years.


My
current
research
is
in
protecting
bamboo
with
palm
fiber
so
that
it
cannot
be

attacked.
I
am
also
employed
by
the
Ministry
of
People
Housing
to
develop
a
manual
of

bamboo
for
post‐disaster
shelter
reconstruction.


Discussion
Notes

The
following
section
of
the
report
provides
detailed
notes
as
collated
from
the

breakout
discussion
groups
and
general
discussions
throughout
the
day


ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
OF
BAMBOO
HARVEST
IN
HUMANITARIAN
RESPONSE


There
is
a
concern
from
Indonesian
bamboo
experts
that
disaster
and
technical
experts

working
in
emergency
response
can
lose
sight
of
or
not
prioritise
the
environmental

implications
of
large‐scale
bamboo
use.
The
Jogyakarta
shelter
program
harvested
1.5

million
culms:
bamboo
management
programs
should
have
been
an
integral
part
of
the

shelter
response
from
the
start.
It
is
a
fallacy
that
you
can
clear‐cut
bamboo
with
little

effect
on
bamboo
regeneration:
even
a
renewable
resource
can
be
harvested
in
an

unsustainable
way.



YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

17





All
t‐shelter
programs
asked
the
villagers
to
source
and
buy
the
bamboo
themselves.

The
price
of
bamboo
doubled;
anecdotal
evidence
suggests
that
some
unscrupulous
or

unconcerned
bamboo
businesses
clear‐felled
local
bamboo
forests
to
meet
the
demand

from
the
shelter
response.
Indian
bamboo
experts
recommend
that
best
practice
is

clump
management
systems,
but
if
there’s
an
emergency,
clearfelling
the
entire
clump

of
bamboo
is
acceptable
emergency
practice;
Indonesian
bamboo
experts
contend
that

clearfelling
bamboo
is
unacceptable
as
it
is
possible
to
kill
off
the
clump
or
take
up
to
a

decade
to
return
to
previous
growth.



The
humanitarian
position
is
that
addressing
human
needs
is
the
overriding
priority.
If

faced
with
the
choice
between
saving
human
lives
in
the
short‐term,
with
a
potential

long‐term
impact
on
the
environment,
humanitarian
agencies
are
mandated
to
choose

human
needs.



However,
humanitarian
actors
contend
that
the
shelter
response
did
consider
the

impact
on
Java’s
bamboo
stock,
but
no
one
had
the
sense
that
it
would
have
a
serious

negative
impact
on
the
environment.
Everyone
who
was
asked
said
there
was
plenty
of

bamboo
and
that
it
wouldn’t
be
a
problem;
bamboo
didn’t
seem
to
run
out.
There
was

no
supply
shortage.
People
said
that
this
pulse
of
bamboo
use
wasn’t
going
to
affect
the

Java‐wide
bamboo
market.
Furthermore,
bamboo
seemed
to
be
more
environmentally

friendly
and
a
more
sustainable
resource
than
other
materials
such
as
timber.
Bamboo

was
chosen
by
the
shelter
Cluster
as
a
“green”
option.




 RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS



 1. ENGAGE
A
STUDY
TO
ESTABLISH
THE
ACTUAL
IMPACT
OF
THE

YOGYAKARTA
SHELTER
RESPONSE
ON
JAVA’S
BAMBOO
RESOURCE.



2. PRODUCE
CLEAR
GUIDELINES
FOR
BEST
PRACTICE
IN
CLUMP


 MANAGEMENT.
THESE
GUIDELINES
NEED
TO
BE
DRAWN
UP
AND


 READILY
AVAILABLE
WITHIN
THE
HUMANITARIAN
SECTOR.



 


MAPPING
THE
NATIONAL
AND
GLOBAL
BAMBOO
RESOURCE


The
Forum
called
for
a
map
to
be
made
of
global
bamboo
availability
for
use
by
the

humanitarian
sector.
EBF
suggested
that
a
map
of
bamboo
resources
needs
to
be
a


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

18





community
process,
carried
out
at
the
community
level,
since
only
communities
have

accurate
knowledge
of
local
bamboo
resources.
The
single
word
“bamboo”
is

misleading:
there
are
over
1000
different
species
of
bamboo,
with
different
properties,

suitable
for
different
things,
native
to
specific
areas,
so
mapping
the
distribution
is

difficult.



However
for
humanitarian
purposes,
a
simple
map
is
sufficient.
A
broad
regional
scale
is

enough:
is
the
type
suitable,
what
is
the
rough
quantity.
Detailed
information
on

species
composition
is
not
as
important
knowing
the
rough
capacity
of
the
bamboo

stock
that
could
satisfy
the
three
structural
needs
for
humanitarian
construction;
exact

quantities
aren’t
necessary.
The
map
should
be
as
simple
a
diagram
as
possible;
it
is
just

to
know
whether
a
bamboo
project
is
viable
there.
For
example,
bamboo
in
Latin

America
is
heavy
and
harder
to
mobilise.
In
Asia,
bamboo
is
fast
growing,
small
and

strong.



RECOMMENDATION


PRODUCE
A
MAP
OF
THE
BAMBOO
RESOURCES
IN
INDONESIA
(AND

POTENTIALLY
GLOBALLY?)
SHOULD
BE
DEVELOPED,
E.G.
A
GIS
MAP

OF
BAMBOO
RESOURCES
WITHIN
SHIPPING
DISTANCE.









DISASTER
PREPARATION
AND
RISK
REDUCTION


The
Jogyakarta
response
was
lucky
in
that
Java
has
such
a
rich
bamboo
resource,
but

other
regions
might
not
be
the
same.
A
key
question
in
one
of
the
discussion
was
why

doesn’t
the
global
disaster
response
community
plant
bamboo
to
prepare
for
its
use
in

humanitarian
crises?
Unfortunately
it
is
much
easier
to
get
money
to
respond
to

disasters
than
to
get
money
to
prepare
for
them.
Humanitarian
shelter
in
particular
is
a

globally
under‐resourced
sector.


In
terms
of
managing
for
future
disasters,
would
it
be
possible
to
develop
replanting

programs
or
community
carbon
credit
schemes?
Is
there
any
capacity
for
NGOs
to
be

disaster
resources
for
carbon
credits?
The
response
was
that
this
would
be
unlikely:
the

responsibility
of
the
humanitarian
sector
is
to
focus
on
humanitarian
work.
It
may
well

overload
the
already
stretched
capacity
of
humanitarian
NGOs
to
take
on
further
roles


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

19





outside
of
their
traditional
mandate.
In
that
case,
which
NGOs
might
step
in
to
take
this

on?



USE
OF
BAMBOO
IN
HUMANITARIAN
RESPONSE


Bamboo
has
been
used
in
disasters
on
a
mass
scale
elsewhere
in
the
world,
e.g.
India

and
Latin
America,
but
never
in
such
a
structured
response.
As
far
as
we
know,
the

Jogyakarta
shelter
reconstruction
program
employed
the
most
extensive
use
of

bamboo,
and
through
community‐based
programs;
the
speed
and
scale
of
deployment

was
unusual;
as
such,
Jogyakarta
is
seen
as
a
leading
example
for
the
world.
However

although
bamboo
is
less
commonly
used
in
post‐disaster
reconstruction,
it
is
a
normal

part
of
construction
in
many
parts
of
the
world.
In
Jogyakarta,
bamboo
was
traditionally

used
long
before
the
earthquake;
one
of
the
strengths
of
the
t‐shelter
program
was

that
it
connected
with
local
wisdom
and
community
knowledge.


It
is
important
to
remember
the
purpose
of
bamboo
in
humanitarian
response:
globally,

the
bamboo
sector
is
interested
in
making
interesting
permanent
architecture,
and

having
the
material
more
valued,
but
the
humanitarian
sector
is
after
a
quick
and
dirty

solution.
The
important
factors
for
humanitarian
use
is
time
(possibility
for
mass

production)
and
cost
(funding),
as
well
as
considering
whether
aid
would
disqualify
the

beneficiaries
from
government
assistance.



TECHNICAL
ISSUES


DISCUSSION

• Connection
system
(concern
about
earthquake
resistance):
connecting
each

element
is
the
most
difficult
and
important
part
in
bamboo
construction.
The

combined
weight
of
the
roof
tiles
is
significant,
nearly
800kgs.
Usually
this
is
a
static

load,
but
during
earthquake
it
becomes
a
dynamic
load
and
a
potential
danger.

• Bamboo
shelter
can
be
considered
as
a
light
structure:
do
we
need
an
extra
strong

foundation
and
is
there
danger
of
damage
to
culms
from
wind?
Not
if
we’re
putting

800kgs
on
the
roof.


• 
Design
recommendations:
it
is
necessary
to
have
something
underneath
the
roof

tiles
to
stop
them
falling
inside
the
house.
Also
need
a
gable
end
to
prevent
roof

tiles
sliding
off
the
roof.

• 
Concrete
jointing?
Debatable.


• 
A
shelter
will
potentially
be
made
weaker
in
an
earthquake
by
having
a
strong

foundation.
This
is
an
example
of
the
confusion
by
the
Cluster
about
building

transitional
shelter.


• One
of
the
tensions
in
the
design
process
is
the
desire
to
come
up
with
a
perfectly


YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

20





engineered
solution
against
the
urgency
to
save
human
lives
and
return
to

normality.
The
humanitarian
objective
is
to
return
the
community
to
normality,
or

to
a
reasonable
standard
of
safe
accomodation
(safe
enough
to
survive
apparent

risks
‐
not
oversafe).
There
is
a
danger
of
overengineering
designs
at
the
expense
of

housing
people
sufficiently
well
and
quickly.


TECHNICAL
ISSUES
TO
INCLUDE
IN
THE
MANUAL

• glues

• connection
system

• treatment
of
bamboo


DEFINITIONS


Bamboo:
A
grass,
not
a
tree.
Globally
there
are
over
500
species.
Indonesia
has
around

67
types
of
bamboo.

Clump:
The
group
of
bamboo
culms.
A
bamboo
grows
by
sending
up
new
shoots

outside
of
the
clump:
inside
the
clump
are
older
culms,
outside
the
clump
are
younger

culms.


Culm:
A
stick
of
bamboo.

Node:
The
joints
on
the
culm.

Shoot:
A
new
culm
coming
up.



YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES

21