Maharashtra Emergency Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme, 1993-1999

1
Maharashtra Emergency Earthquake Rehabilitation
Programme, 1993-1999

• Krishna S. Vatsa
• Relief and Rehabilitation
• Government of Maharashtra

2
The earthquake

• September 30, 1993 356 am
• 6.3 on Richter scale
• Epicentre near Killari, Latur district
• 8,000 people killed, 16,000 injured
• 25,000 houses collapsed, another 200,000 suffered
  damages of varying degrees
• 52 Villages razed to ground
• 1500 villages damaged by earthquake
• Latur and Osmanabad districts badly affected, 11
  other districts also affected by the earthquake

3

4
Main Features

• A rural earthquake in a relatively backward
  agricultural region
• Density of deaths very high 8,000 deaths in 52
  villages
• A deep sense of devastation and trauma
• Houses collapsed due to poor building practices
  uncoursed stones, poor masonry, thick walls, and
  heavy roof
• 25,000 houses collapsed, another 1,90,000
  suffered damage of varying degrees in about 2,500
  villages
• Economic losses not very heavy
• Total Damage assessment US300 million

5
Financing Reconstruction and Rehabilitation

• Total Cost of Reconstruction and Rehabilitation
  US358 Million
• World Bank Credit US 221 million (62 percent)
• Government of Maharashtra US 96 million (27
  percent)
• Donors (DfID, UNDP, ADB and External donors) US
  41 million (11 percent)

6
Reconstruction and Rehabilitation

• Focus on Housing (220,000 Units)
• Infrastructure (Roads, Bridges, Water Supply,
  Drainage and Sewerage)
• Social, Economic, and Community Rehabilitation
• Technical Assistance (Project Management, IEC,
  Disaster Management)

7
Basic Scheme of Rehabilitation

• Relocation of 52 most affected villages in Latur
  and Osmanabad districts A Category
• In-situ reconstruction of 22 villages in Latur
  and Osmanabad (they were eventually relocated) B
  Category
• Repairs and Strengthening of houses in 1500
  villages spread over 11 districts C Category

8
Peoples Entitlements

• Core houses in A Category (250, 400, and 750
  Square feet) according to land ownership
• Rs. 62,000 to each beneficiary for reconstruction
  of their individual houses
• Rs. 17,000 and Rs. 34,500 for repairs,
  reconstruction and strengthening of houses

9
Initial Difficulties

• Rushed reconstruction
• Inappropriate designs pushed by NGOs
• Quality Control became an issue
• Communities bargaining with NGOs
• Government stepped in
• Pre-approval of house designs
• Supervision of NGOs reconstruction
• In-situ reconstruction Repairs and
  Strengthening a non-starter

10
Reconstruction Strategy A Category (52
Villages)

• Complete abandonment of old sites
• Acquisition of land for relocation sites
• Layout, Design and bid preparation by engineering
  consultants
• Tendering for reconstruction
• Consultations with the community
• New layout of villages
• Houses on the basis of nucleus families
• Decongestion, but increase in sprawl
• Increase in length of internal roads and storm
  water drains

11
Accomplishments and Limitations

• Construction of 28,000 houses
• Low-income groups net beneficiaries
  house-ownership a positive outcome
• Women found new houses easier to clean and
  maintain
• Houses brought a new life-style with increase in
  possession of consumer durables
• A mixed record on adaptation to new houses and
  life in relocated villages
• No intermix of communities Different caste
  groups retained their exclusive identity
• Quality Control always an issue both in
  government as well as NGOs construction An
  outcome of community participation
• Civic amenities varying levels of satisfaction
• Limitations to community participation, which
  reduced the level of satisfaction

12
In-situ Reconstruction B Category (22
villages)

• Work was stalled for more than two years
• People wanted relocation
• Government finally accepted relocation
• Six villages joined the category later
• NGOs purchased the land
• Construction largely through NGOs (About 10,000
  houses)
• Layout and design through extensive community
  consultations
• Lesser civic amenities in terms of internal roads
  and sewerage
• A contested process, but a higher level of
  satisfaction

13
Repairs and StrengtheningC Category (1500
villages)

• Largest category of program (180,000 houses in
  1500 villages across 11 districts)
• Owner-driven construction
• Disbursement of financial assistance in
  installments linked to physical progress
• Distribution of building material through depots
  set up by governments
• Extensive supervision through engineers at the
  village-level

14
Accomplishments and Limitations

• Started almost two years later, but finished
  within one to two years
• It acquired the dimension of a housing movement
• People used the assistance to increase living
  space and renew their houses
• Families participation in reconstruction
• They brought their own savings
• A very high level of satisfaction
• Focus on housing not much was done for improving
  civic and community facilities

15
Relocation vs. In-situ Reconstruction

• Improving the habitat, not reconstruction, the
  main goal
• Choice between in-situ reconstruction and
  relocation should be guided by this goal
• In-situ reconstruction is a better and cheaper
  choice, but relocation is at times unavoidable
  (decongestion, difficulties in clearing debris,
  psychological trauma)
• An ideal situation is one which combines the
  positive features of both the options
• Which means in-situ reconstruction on a bigger
  plot, better layout and architectural design,
  stronger foundations, more decongested
  environment

16
Contractor-driven vs. Owner-driven Reconstruction

• Owner-driven construction a better choice a
  better utilization of resources and greater
  control and supervision over reconstruction
• It may not be feasible for many families which
  lost their adult members
• Government required to provide housing to
  socially handicapped people, and hence
  contractor-driven strategy remains relevant
• Necessary to make this choice based on
  communities needs, their capacities and
  vulnerabilities

17

Reconstruction vs. Retrofitting Strategy

• In the Repairs and Strengthening Category,
  construction of additional rooms and increased
  their living space
• Retrofitting of houses not really a priority
• Retrofitting involves complex techniques, closer
  supervision, and may not be feasible in a
  large-scale program
• Community needs should be guiding factor

18
Lessons at Program Level

• Focus on resettlement planning and architecture
  rather than earthquake engineering
• Dynamic response to emerging community
  perceptions flexibility and innovation required
• A strong institutional framework of consultations
  with the communities
• Increasing communities stakeholding through
  their financial and work contribution

19
Lessons at Project Level

• Strong project leadership
• Building a committed project team
• A well-developed framework of partnership with
  donors and NGOs
• Well-established institutional mechanisms and
  procedures for implementation
• Secure budget lines