Iom SC Transitional Shelter Evaluation in Pakistan

Presentation
Evaluation in Pakistan
Federica Lisa, Shelter Centre

Joanna Read, Shelter Centre
Heiner Gloor, Shelter Centre
Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

Purpose of the evaluation
1. Determine what lessons can be learned from the

2010 flood, and 2005 earthquake response in
Pakistan for informing a set of Transitional
Shelter Guidelines
2. Assess the value of IOM’s prefab transitional

shelter programme in Kashmir
(post 2005 earthquake )

Content of this presentation
1. Executive summary
Overview of shelters evaluated
Summary of findings
2. 2005 Kashmir earthquake evaluation
Overview
Urban prefab shelter types
Findings
3. 2010 Pakistan flood evaluation
Overview
One room shelters
Transitional shelters
4. Conclusions
Executive summary

Executive summary
Kashmir (’05 Eq):
Prefab shelters:
• SIDA-IOM,
• Saudi Government
• Turkish Red Cross
• Samaritan’s Purse

Executive summary
Kashmir (’05 Eq):
Prefab shelters:
• SIDA-IOM,
KPK (2010 flood)

• NRC, PAKCDP, SAH
transitional shelters
•Ummah Welfare Trust
reconstruction site

Executive summary
Kashmir (’05 Eq):
Prefab shelters:
• SIDA-IOM,
KPK (2010 flood)

reconstruction site
Punjab (2010 flood)

•UN-Habitat one room
shelter pilot project
• UN-Habitat sandbag TS
• IIH (Turkey) prefab TS

Executive summary
Kashmir (’05 Eq):
Prefab shelters:
• SIDA-IOM,
KPK (2010 flood)

reconstruction site
Punjab (2010 flood)

•UN-Habitat one room
shelter pilot project Sindh (2010 flood)
• UN-Habitat sandbag TS IOM one room shelter
• IIH (Turkey) prefab TS pilot projects

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

Executive summary
Summary of findings
• Transitional shelter may be appropriate in

specific cases:
a. displaced persons;
b. beneficiaries who need to focus on
activities other than rebuilding for some
time;
c. very vulnerable households.
• Use local materials/techniques where possible:

lack of acceptance, and setting up supply
chains, can cause major delays

Summary of findings
Overview
Findings
Overview
One room shelters
4. Conclusions
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

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

Muzaffarabad urban scenario
Tents Reconstruction
Prefab
Earthquake for up to compliant to ERRA
shelters
2 years standards
Balakot urban scenario
Earthquake
Tents
for up to
Prefab ? Relocation
shelters Unregulated
1 year
reconstruction
No permanent
reconstruction
allowed

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
Balakot, November 2010
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
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
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

Weaknesses
• Slow response time
• High cost
• Shelters much smaller

than pre-earthquake
construction
• Very little (often no)

beneficiary involvement

Findings
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

Findings
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
Overview
Findings
Overview
One room shelter
Transitional shelter
Permanent reconstruction
4. Conclusions

2010 floods overview
Key facts
www.shelterpakistan.org

Key facts
UN OCHA Update 1st Nov 2010

www.shelterpakistan.org
Provinces Houses Emergency Remaining

destroyed or shelter need*
damaged distributed -
coverage
PAK 6,308 34% 4,177
Balochistan 75,596 47% 40,372
Gilgit 2,830 102% -
Baltistan
KPK 285,243 78% 61,498
Punjab 500,000 32% 274,346
Sindh 876,194 17% 639,793
TOTAL 1,746,171 33% 874,696
* Total remaining needs = sum of provincial remaining needs – unallocated pipeline

‘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

‘Early recovery’ shelter strategy
• ‘One room shelter’ strategy selected for returnees
• Transitional shelter strategy selected only for extended

displacement and seasonal flood migrants

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

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

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


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)

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

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

Punjab Province, November 2010
• Cost: $500+
• Cluster strategy for:
• those facing extended

displacement; and
• seasonal flood
migrants
• Some NGOs also using NRC, KPK Province, 2010
transitional shelter for:
• beneficiaries whos
primary need is to
focus on agriculture
• beneficiaries who do
not have resources to
start rebuilding
Sandbag transitional shelter
• 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. UN-Habitat, Punjab Province, 2010
• Unlikely to be used on a
large scale due to high
cost and lack of
acceptance.

Strengths
• relatively cheap –
encourages use of material
readily available (sand on
site!)
• reusable roofing material
(I beam, chiq, bamboo)
• comfortable internal Punjab Province, Pakistan , November 2010
conditions (good thermal

performance)
• opportunities for
beneficiary involvement in
construction

Weaknesses
• Lack of acceptance from
community
• Beneficiaries not
convinced that shelter is
flood proof
• Stigma of ‘poor man’s
construction’. Punjab, Pakistan, November 2010
• Wall material not easy to

reuse
• Expensive

Lessons learned
• Lots of grassroots
dialogue is needed for
the community to accept
a new technology
• Vital for transitional

shelter to include
reusable elements UN-Habitat, Punjab Province, 2010
• Relatively high cost

(>$500) makes this
design financially
unsustainable

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)

Strengths
• Quick to assemble and
relatively cheap
• Some support to local
markets and economy –
chiq, bamboo, timber
• Use of standard parts
makes repairs easy
SLA, KPK Province, November 2010
• All parts are potentially
reusable
• Opportunities for some

beneficiary involvement
in construction

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 SLA, KPK Province, November 2010
• Generally not locally

accepted building
techniques
• Not flood resistant
• Additional funds required
for final construction –
reliance on WATAN card

Lessons learned UN-HABITAT, Sindh Province, 2010
• 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

Prefab transitional shelter
• 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

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
Weaknesses
• Very expensive (~$4,500)
• Unlikely to be suitable for

warm, humid climates
• Repairs potentially difficult

due to imported, non
standard parts Punjab Province, November 2010
• ‘Camp like’ layout of

• Unlikely that shelters will

be reused due to easily
damaged parts and the
large logistic effort required

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 Punjab Province, November 2010
• Prefabricated shelters are

unlikely to be suitable for
use in rural areas

Summary of findings
Overview
Findings
Overview
One room shelters
4. Conclusions
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?

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

Thank you
Questions?

Iom SC Transitional Shelter Evaluation in Pakistan

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Iom SC Transitional Shelter Evaluation in Pakistan

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Presentation

Federica Lisa, Shelter Centre

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

1. Determine what lessons can be learned from the

2. Assess the value of IOM’s prefab transitional

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

KPK (2010 flood)

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

KPK (2010 flood)

Punjab (2010 flood)

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

KPK (2010 flood)

Punjab (2010 flood)

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

• Important to remember that transitional shelter

• Serious consideration needs to be given to the

• Transitional shelter is not necessarily a discrete

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

• Transitional shelter may be appropriate in

• Use local materials/techniques where possible:

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

28,000 urban houses destroyed or damaged

83% housing units in Muzaffarabad damaged or

95% housing units in Balakot damaged or destroyed

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

Initial payment of Rs 25,000 ($ 290) from the

10,000 prefabricated transitional shelters provided in

A further Rs150,000 ($ 1,750) paid by the

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

Balakot urban scenario

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

• Cost: $4,600 (in 2006)

• Cost: $6,300 (in 2006) inc.

• Cost: $4,500 (in 2006)

Turkish Red Crescent

• Cost: $ Unknown – most

• Parts from some designs

• In some cases, basic

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

• Slow response time

• Shelters much smaller

• Very little (often no)

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

• Easy to reuse/resell parts:

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

• Key problem was the slow

• “Would have been better

• Donors allowed to dictate

• Samaritan’s Purse and

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

UN OCHA Update 1st Nov 2010

Provinces Houses Emergency Remaining

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

• Transitional shelter strategy selected only for extended

Sindh Province, Pakistan, November 2010

Shelter Meeting 10b is hosted by UN/OCHA Friday 3 December 2010

• Time – water receding quickly and people start to rebuild

• Lack of technical surge capacity

• Local building practices not flood resistant